Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Southwark and Bermondsey have been unemployed for longer than a year; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): On 14 January 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency who had been unemployed for more than one year was 3,048. That was 285 fewer than in January last year.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that although unemployment has fallen a little since last year it is up by one third since 1983? Forty-six per cent. of those who are unemployed have been out of work for more than a year. What hope is there for people in constituencies such as mine that the inner-city initiatives will produce help for local residents and not for so many of the commuters who come in from onside inner-city areas?

Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I cannot help feeling that he is putting too gloomy a gloss on the matter. Unemployment has fallen by 12·9 per cent. in Southwark and Bermondsey during the past year. The travel-to-work area that includes the constituency has a lower rate of unemployment than the national average. If one considers the work done by the London Docklands Development Corporation, there is every reason to suppose that the jobs that are being attracted to the area and preserved and created there are certainly not all going to visitors. There is every reason to suppose that they are benefiting local people.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend has said about the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency. Can he confirm that these promising signs prevail in the Southwark borough as a whole, and, in particular, in my constituency of Dulwich?

Mr. Nicholls: Whatever signs one looks at in the area, the position is hopeful. Job clubs in Southwark have helped about 225 people into jobs, the equivalent of 3,520 in Greater London. The YTS in Southwark is currently helping 555 people. The whole pattern is clear: the benefit that the whole country is enjoying is reflected in areas such as the constituencies of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).

Companies (Tourists' Visits)

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage industrial companies to open their premises to tourists; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I shall continue to take every opportunity to promote the potential benefits to be gained from industrial tourism and am particularly pleased at the support expressed by Sir David Nickson, the president of the CBI, at my recent meeting with him. I welcome his proposal for a conference to be arranged by the CBI on this topic in September this year.

Mr. Couchman: Everyone likes to watch other people at work. Who has not stopped to watch the activity on a building site or visited a local craft factory, such as a pottery or glassworks? Will my hon. Friend use his considerable influence to open up more mainstream industrial processes — for instance, car and furniture manufacturing—to industrial tourism? Who knows — that might even help us to sell a few more British goods.

Mr. Lee: As one who voted for the televising of the House, I believe that people do want to watch other people at work. In more serious vein, there is considerable potential for opening up more of our industrial factories to tourists. I want to encourage firms to progress from open days, or allowing only limited parties to go around, to embracing the concept of visitors and constructing walkways and viewing points, with proper visitors' entrances and access.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister take a personal interest in the project being proposed by Jennings Breweries in Cockermouth in my constituency? It wants to turn part of the brewery into a sort of museum, but there appears to be some resistance from the councillors on the parish council. Will the Minister put it to them that Jennings' proposals are in the interests of the people of Cockermouth, and will he intervene?

Mr. Lee: I spend a great deal of time up in the Lake District and in areas covered by the Cumbria tourist board. In the next two or three weeks I hope to visit the Cumberland Pencil Company in Keswick. I shall certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's points about Jennings and look into the matter. In due course, I may be able to visit the brewery, too.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to ensure that nuclear and coal-burning power stations have facilities for visitors and viewing galleries? Does he agree that as the sites are often on coasts and estuaries, they may become significant tourist attractions during a typical English summer?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. He has opened up a new range of tourism opportunities for the electrical industry and coal mines. I should like to place on record the great success that British Nuclear Fuels has achieved at Sellafield, which receives 100,000 visitors a year.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Dennis Canavan: To ask the Secetary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in unemployment since May 1979.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Between May 1979 and January 1988 the seasonally adjusted level of adult unemployment increased by 122 per cent. on a consistent basis. The figure has now fallen by 647,000 since July 1986—which is the largest sustained fall on record — to 2,563,100, which is the lowest figure since April 1982.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister not ashamed to come to the Dispatch Box to give those figures? Why is his boss, the Secretary of State for unemployment, swanning around the United States of America? No doubt he is cooking up some workfare scheme for the unemployed instead of coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us how the Government will create real jobs for unemployed people and get unemployment down to the level that they inherited from the last Labour Government.

Mr. Cope: My right hon. Friend is in the United States to promote the "Invest in Britain" campaign, which will help with jobs for this country. I am proud of the fact that unemployment has been going down strongly for the past 18 months in all regions, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Falkirk, where it has been decreasing faster than the national average.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the spectre of unemployment recedes, presumably to the political disappointment of many Labour Members, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major challenges with which industry and the Government are faced is skill shortages? Can he offer some hope that this matter will be dealt with?

Mr. Cope: Yes, I can. However, when employers talk to me about skill shortages I always ask them how many people they are training. It is surprising how few have made the connection. We now have the new training programme that was announced by my right hon. Friend the other day, which will help considerably in this regard.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister noticed the statement that was issued yesterday by the Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd. It challenges the Government's assertion that 2·3 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on research and development. Its calculations show that only 1·9 per cent. is spent, which is considerably below the amount spent by our nearest competitors. Is not that failure to invest in research and development reflected in the increased levels of unemployment from which we have suffered since 1979?

Mr. Cope: My Department does not deal with these figures, and I have not studied the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I was talking about investment in skills, which is important, and which we are keen to encourage.

Mr. Burt: Is my hon. Friend aware that some parts of the country that have been associated with traditional manufacturing industry and high levels of unemployment have experienced some of the most spectacular falls in unemployment? Will he pay tribute to the spirit of enterprise that has been shown in my constituency of Bury, North, where the level of unemployment is down to 7 per cent.? Will he pay tribute to the hard-working staff of the job centres in Bury and Ramsbottom, whose efforts have contributed to that fall?

Mr. Cope: Yes, the staff in jobcentres in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere have played a large part in the success. It is also a very good thing that over the year unemployment has been falling fastest in the west midlands, Wales, the north-west and the north, which are the most difficult regions.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the Government's own "Labour Force Survey", just published, shows that in the year to mid-1987 the number of new jobs created was just 31,000, while the Government claim that over the same priod unemployment was cut by 221,000? Does that not prove that the Government's much vaunted big cut in unemployment is largely bogus and has much more to do with deterrent restart interviews and tighter availability for work rules than with any genuine creation of new jobs?

Mr. Cope: On the contrary, we have been creating new jobs very rapidly in recent years. The hon. Gentleman will see that if he compares our figures with those for overseas. Since June 1983 more new jobs have been created in this country than in the whole of the rest of the European Community put together.

Tourism

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom in 1987.

Mr. Lee: By November 1987 the tourism industry in the United Kingdom had achieved a record, with 14·9 million visitors to the country. This figure is a 9 per cent. increase on the equivalent period in the previous record year of 1985. The total for the whole of 1987 will be released tomorrow.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Can he estimate what contribution tourism made to the economy in 1987 and how our record compares with that of other Western nations? What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to help the English tourist board to move the many tourists who arrive in London to the regions? In my experience, Americans who come to south Dorset from London do not want to go back because of the wonderful welcome that they receive in places such as Weymouth and Swanage.

Mr. Lee: Let me take the latter part of my hon. Friend's question first. The English tourist board is working hard with the regional tourist boards to encourage American visitors to move into the regions rather than stay in London, Edinburgh and Stratford.
My hon. Friend asked about the contribution that tourism makes to the economy. There are a number of factors to be considered. The industry sustains 1·4 million jobs and the figure is growing at the rate of nearly 1,000 a week. We calculate that tourism now generates around £1·5 billion worth of new construction. In terms of overseas visitor tourist earnings, tourism is about 25 per cent. more important than aerospace, and four times more important than motor vehicles. Finally, my hon. Friend asked about other Western countries. We are fifth in the dollar earnings league in tourism, behind the United States, Spain, Italy and France.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that as tourism grows the number of official bodies proliferates and the


arrangements could probably benefit from rationalisation? Is he also aware that some of the current problems arise from Government policy? For example, how are tourists to explore those delightful but remote villages in south Humberside and north Humberside when there are no longer rural bus services because of Government policies?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman knows that his specific question is for another Department. On his earlier point, while there may be a proliferation of tourism bodies in certain areas, a welcome feature of recent years has been the increasing partnership in the industry between the public sector — the regional tourist boards—and the private sector.
On the question about transport, we are blessed with a pretty good motorway network which helps the regions, particularly the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside.

Labour Statistics

Mr. McLoughin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered with jobcentres in the east midlands.

Mr. Nicholls: On 6 January 1988 the number of unfilled vacancies, excluding community programme, registered at jobcentres in the east midlands region was 11,300. This was an increase of 18·1 per cent. on the figure for January 1987.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which is very encouraging. It shows up some of the protestations from the Opposition, especially bearing in mind that there are fewer than 20 Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber for employment questions.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important aspects of creating jobs is the creation of employment opportunities within areas? Is he aware that Derbyshire county council levies the highest shire county rate, and does he agree that that is a great disincentive to the creation of jobs in the county?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the figures can look so promising in spite of that is a tribute to the efforts of the people who live there. It is a pity that the county council does not seem to devote as much time to considering the implications of a high rate for job prospects as it does to other activities, such as removing the Latin mottoes from local schools and replacing them with propositions relating to nuclear-free zones.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that Derbyshire county council would have been able to do much more if, in the last financial year, the Government had not taken £20 million from it, thus creating difficulties for every ratepayer in Derbyshire?
While the Minister is on the subject of jobs in the east midlands, will he tell us why, when I was asking questions a few years ago about the massive unemployment in the area, he said that it was not the Government's fault? It is not the Government's fault when the unemployment figures are going up, but when they come down —marginally—the Minister claims the credit.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman asks me, by implication, to comment on unemployment in the east

midlands, and I am happy to do so. East midlands unemployment was down by over 35,000 in the last year. That is a rate of 8·3 per cent., and compares favourably with the United Kingdom rate of 9·2 per cent., adjusted. On the other hand, I appreciate that if Derbyshire county council cannot understand the virtues of living within one's means, it is highly unlikely that the hon. Gentleman will understand them either.

Employment Opportunities (Lancashire)

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment opportunities in Lancashire.

Mr. Nicholls: On 8 January the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in Lancashire was 5,716. This compares with 4,790 in January 1987. Only about one third of all vacancies nationally are notified to jobcentres. In the same period, unemployment in Lancashire has fallen from 79,344 to 65,623. All my Department's employment, training and enterprise measures are available in Lancashire.

Mr. Jack: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's answer, as it bears out the fact that in my constituency of Fylde unemployment has dropped to about 7·5 per cent. Already, however, employers are experiencing shortages in both semi-skilled and highly skilled jobs. Can my hon. Friend tell me which items in his new training package he feels will contribute to addressing the problem? Does he feel that the voluntary sector has a role to play in that work as well?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to suggest that the voluntary sector has a role to play. Certainly, employers in the Fylde area report particular skill shortages in administration, legal secretaries, computer staff and so on. The new adult training programme will be very much locally conceived and locally delivered, precisely so that it can take account of particular skill shortages and requirements in particular areas.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister honestly believe that employment prospects in Lancashire and the north of England generally can be as good as they are in the southeast, unless the Government are prepared to take proper steps? For instance, a development agency for the northwest would ensure that we received the investment that is needed to achieve decent quality employment in the areas.

Mr. Nicholls: The short answer is yes. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has already said today, the rate of unemployment is falling, not only in the more prosperous regions, but throughout all the regions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to examine any of the indicators for the areas about which he is concerned, he will find that that good news continues. For instance, unemployment in Lancashire has fallen from 14·8 to 12·2 per cent. Although we may wish that it had fallen still further, the point is that in the present economic environment it is clear that all regions not simply the more prosperous areas will benefit from falls in unemployment.

Tourist Priority Sites

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will create a list of tourist priority sites for the encouragement of investment therein.

Mr. Lee: The Government have no plans to create a list of tourist priority investment sites. However, in its development strategy, "Vision for England", the English tourist board has highlighted the many opportunities that exist for investment in a wide range of tourism developments.

Mr. Adley: Although politics is about priorities, and "unique" is perhaps the most overworked word in the English language, does my hon. Friend agree that the Settle to Carlisle railway line is a unique priority for salvation as we approach the moment of decision?

Mr. Budgen: Salvation?

Mr. Adley: Yes. It is a good word and perhaps my hon. Friend should learn it.
As the Department of Transport—I recognise that it has immediate ministerial responsibility for the decision—struggles to find a solution to the problem, will my hon. Friend recognise, not only that the River Ribble rises in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary and that he has an interest in all this, but that my hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible for tourism, should do everything that he can to ensure that the line is not closed? Therefore, will my hon. Friend assure me today that he will speak to Department of Transport Ministers urgently to ensure that the tourism opportunities of the line are considered as part of the case against its closure?

Mr. Lee: I am aware of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for both railways and tourism, and I understand his passion and conviction for the Settle to Carlisle line. I should emphasise that, as my hon. Friend has already said, this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that I have certainly ensured that the tourism considerations are taken into account. Indeed, I know the River Ribble well and I fish its headwater whenever I get the opportunity.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister ensure that the Jarvis plc—MSC report on the Settle to Carlisle line corridor is brought to the attention of the Department of Transport? That report represents an important initiative by the Minister's Department regarding that line and its retention. Some of us suspect that the Department of Transport is planning to close the line. While the Minister is about that, could he look at the basis of this question—investment in tourist projects? He has spoken a great deal about job creation and so on, but why does the Department not put its money where its mouth is, for example, in projects such as the transport museum and associated tramway in my constituency at Low Moor in Bradford?

Mr. Lee: I believe I am correct in saying that the Department of Employment has funded, via the MSC, the Jarvis report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As I said in answer to an earlier written question, that report will be published shortly. The hon. Gentleman should rest assured that the tourist implications have been and will be taken into account.

Mr. Alison: Is my hon. Friend aware that a trip over the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line, perhaps in a Pullman train pulled by one of our great historic steam locomotives such as a Great Western King or an LMS Duchess, blasting its way up to Aisgill summit is one of the

world's greatest international tourist attractions? In comparison to that experience a trip even to Venice on the Orient Express is as a mere trip on Brighton pier. Will my hon. Friend both sample and save the Settle-Carlisle route?

Mr. Lee: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. Of course, all of us would like to see trains continuing to run across the viaduct, but, as a fisherman, I hope that they are not too heavy and do not disturb the fishing too much.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that Carlisle city council and the Cumbria county council are continuing to finance the Carlisle-Settle line despite the fact that the county council is threatened with rate-capping? Does the Minister agree that the closure of the line would have a detrimental effect on the efforts made by Carlisle city council to promote tourism? Will the Minister, once more, speak to the Secretary of State for Transport and make those facts known to him?

Mr. Lee: All I would say at this stage is that I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, is having discussions with a number of authorities, including, I believe, Carlisle.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly within the heart of England, there is plenty of scope for tourist development? Will he have a word with some of his colleagues in other Departments to ensure that the integrity of those areas is maintained, so that Britain remains as we know it today?

Mr. Lee: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. Only last night I was in Malvern, in the Heart of England tourist board area, and tomorrow I hope to be in the Forest of Dean.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that tomorrow's official tourism figures will show the biggest annual trade deficit in tourism for Britain for three decades? Is he aware that the Government's policy of high interest rates has sapped tourism as destructively as it has sapped our manufacturing industries? Is he further aware that the Chancellor's policy of tax cuts plus high interest rates is the exact opposite of what the British economy in general and tourism in particular really need, which are lower interest rates and a lower pound to boost exports, while keeping import prices as high as possible?

Mr. Lee: I am delighted that the official employment spokesman for the Opposition has, at long last, asked a question about tourism. That emphasises the importance of the industry. How he can possibly say, when our tourist industry is vibrant and buoyant, that the Government's policy has sapped it, I find totally incomprehensible.

YTS

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently on YTS schemes; what percentage of trainees on YTS schemes found jobs on the expiry of their training in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholls: At the end of January 1988 there were 413,000 young people in training on YTS.
Results from the Manpower Services Commission's follow-up survey of YTS leavers show that, of those young


people who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and August 1987, 60 per cent. were in a job and 14 per cent. were in further training or education when surveyed within a year after leaving.

Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend heard it said that YTS schemes are a source of cheap labour for employers, but do not the figures he has given deny that? Will he always ensure that the educational and training contents of schemes are well up to standard? Will he give the figures for Ealing in terms of YTS trainees in work?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to point out that some people still seek to criticise YTS by suggesting that it is no more than cheap labour for employers. Anyone in that frame of mind has only to talk to many families throughout the country to find out that that is not the position. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that standards of training must be maintained within the YTS, and they certainly are maintained. As for his own constituency, the figures are even more encouraging than the national average. In Ealing, 64 per cent. of YTS trainees went into jobs and 14 per cent. went into some other form of training.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister not being a little smug? Should we all not be concerned if 40 per cent. of our young people are unemployed after two years' training on YTS? Given that in some parts of the country the proportion is very much higher, should not the Minister be making plans to provide work opportunities for those young people? We know that in the Minister's target group for the new adult training scheme. among 18 to 24-year-olds, 25 per cent. have O-levels, 20 per cent. have A-levels and 6 per cent. have degrees, yet they are long-term unemployed. Does the Minister not realise that what is needed is not just more training but jobs for young people so that they can make a worthwhile contribution to their local communities?

Mr. Nicholls: I might have had slightly more patience with the hon. Lady had she not used every other occasion to denigrate and rubbish the YTS scheme. The figures are an average, and obviously an average is a combination of high and low target averages. On average, more than 74 per cent. of people go on to jobs, further training or education. By definition, if they had not been on the YTS scheme, presumably they would not have been able to get a job. Both sides of the House ought to be united by the recognition of what is being done for young people, in the hon. Lady's constituency and in mine. She should welcome that, not try to rubbish it.

British Venture Capital Association

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to meet the chairman of the British Venture Capital Association to discuss investment in smaller business; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: I met Mr. Lionel Anthony, chairman of the British Venture Capital Association, on 18 January. We had a wide-ranging discussion on ways in which venture capital investment in smaller businesses might be further encouraged, particularly in areas outside the south-east. In addition, I spoke at the BVCA conference in Manchester on 19 February.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of the Venture Capital Association and other funds, in producing more resources for smaller firms, is very much to be welcomed? Does he agree that the real anxiety centres on sums much smaller than is commonly invested by venture capital funds? Is he considering introducing, for example, an improved investment fund which would enable sums as small as £25,000 to he found for small firms that wish to expand?

Mr. Cope: I certainly agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend had to say. Britain's venture capital industry is the most advanced in Europe and has done well. On smaller amounts of finance below that provided by the venture capital industry, I remind my hon. Friend that in the first three years of the business expansion scheme half the firms involved raised amounts of less than £50,000, and nearly two thirds raised less than £100,000. We are always ready to consider further initiatives in this area.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows full well, if he talks to the chairman, that there is an equity gap below £250,000, according to some sources, or below £100.000 according to others. However, the fact is that after nine years of this Government there is still a great shortage of investment, particularly outside London and the southeast. Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman talked to his opposite numbers in the Department of Trade and Industry who have recently shelved a report on innovation centres, because one of the real ways in which small industries and firms can get moving in the high-tech area is if innovation centres are bonded with the ability to provide loans and equity capital? Is it not about time that the Government and those Departments got their act together for small business?

Mr. Cope: As I have already said, I recognise the problems of raising small amounts of equity capital, but that is what the loan guarantee and the business expansion schemes, and the other schemes that we have introduced, are about. As I have said, we shall go on considering further suggestions that are made.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the small firms service.

Mr. Cope: The small firms service, through its information and counselling arms, works to promote viable and profitable small businesses. In 1986–87, in England, it handled over 283,000 inquiries and gave 38,210 counselling sessions. With the development of the local enterprise agencies, it is increasingly developing its counselling activities with established business. Copies of the annual report on the service for 1986–87 were placed in the Library in July.

Mr. Stevens: I am sure that my hon. Friend's support for small business is greatly welcome, but will he say, following his announcement that there will be direct access to the small firms computer database, how that will operate and what benefits there will be for the chambers of commerce and local enterprise agencies?

Mr. Cope: I intend as soon as possible to make this database, which the small firms service operates, available


in computerised form or hard copy form to other organisations in the small business advice area. We are working out the detailed arrangements now and I shall announce them as soon as I am able to do so. The database is already consulted by organisations such as local enterprise agencies and chambers of commerce ringing up the small firms centres. I want them to have direct access so that questions can be answered quickly, authoritatively and easily.

Mr. Bellingham: Excellent though the small firms service is, is it not the local enterprise agencies that have contacts at grass root level, so that it is imperative that they work closely together? What specific steps will my hon. Friend take to encourage close integration between the two?

Mr. Cope: We encourage close integration. The database is a further step in that direction, and, for that matter, so is the integration of counsellors, on which we have been carrying out a pilot experiment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which we hope to develop further throughout Britain. Many of our small firms service counsellors operate from time to time in premises supplied, for example, by local enterprise agencies, and we are keen to encourage such co-operation.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that the small firms counselling service was started by the Labour Government? What progress has been made by the small firms service in general, against the blows produced by the Government's general economic policy, in stemming the loss of 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry since 1979 and providing jobs in small firms, for example, in engineering and machine tools? Is the small firms service making a positive contribution towards providing proper long-term jobs in the small firms sector?

Mr. Cope: I think that it makes its contribution. In the nature of things, it is very difficult to measure exactly what piece of advice led to the creation of an individual job, let alone to produce statistics overall. But certainly manufacturing, including engineering manufacturing, is well represented among the firms to which the small firms service gives advice.

Inner Cities

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures currently being taken by his Department to improve levels of employment in the inner cities.

Mr. Cope: The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission provide a wide range of programmes which aim to equip individuals in inner cities and elsewhere with the skills and motivation to compete for available jobs and to stimulate enterprise and the growth of small businesses. The level of commitment is reflected in the estimated expenditure by the Department and the commission of over £1·1 billion in the areas of the 57 urban partnership authorities.

Mrs. Hicks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the inner-city officer in the jobcentre in Wolverhampton will be concentrating his help and energy on those unemployed people in some of the most deprived areas in my constituency, such as Low Hill and Heathtown, as part of the Government's initiative in reducing inner-city deprivation?

Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. I had the pleasure of visiting the task force in my hon. Friend's constituency in Wolverhampton recently and certainly those areas, among others in Wolverhampton, are part of his special task.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that many of the employment opportunities to which he refers are temporary, part-time and low-paid, and create an illusion of economic prosperity, rather than the reality, for many people living in inner-city areas?

Mr. Cope: Of course many of them are part-time, but many of them are full-time.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the inner cities could very well benefit from a substantial share in the extra revenue from tourism in this country, and what steps does he propose to take to ensure that this comes about?

Mr. Cope: We attempt to encourage tourism in all parts of the country, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who deals with tourism, has a particular interest in creating employment in this way in the inner cities.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the need in these areas is local jobs for local people, as opposed to developments which are attractive to outsiders? When are the Government going to accept that elected local councillors have a crucial role to play in the regeneration of our inner-city areas?

Mr. Cope: We believe that co-operation between Government agencies, local authorities and the private sector is very important to the creation of local jobs. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that it is local jobs that we require as much as anything, but obviously other jobs have their part to play.

Confectionery Industry

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate how many of those employed in the confectionery industry are full time and how many are part time.

Mr. Lee: In December 1987 there were an estimated 177,000 employees in employment in the confectionery industry, of whom 42,000 were women working part time. I regret that current estimates of the number of men working part time in this industry are not available, but in 1984 there were about 4,000.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are indeed encouraging, but that they could be increased, according to the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, by some 2,250 if confectionery were re-rated in alliance with foods? Will he undertake to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, even at this late hour, to look upon this favourably, especially since some further 6,000 people would be employed in ancillary industries?

Mr. Lee: No day of employment questions would be complete without a question from my hon. Friend about confectionery, employment and VAT. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point made about the projections from the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not accept that the figures for the travel-to-work areas are totally misleading, partly because the travel-to-work—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is about confectionery, I am afraid.

American Tourists

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will make a statement on the number of American tourists who visited the United Kingdom in 1987.

Mr. Lee: Figures for the full year are not yet available, but in the first 11 months of 1987, 3,380,000 residents from North America visited the United Kingdom. This compares with 2,672,000 in the same period of 1986 and 3,634,000 in 1985.

Mr. Hargreaves: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in American tourists indicates that the downturn in the value of the dollar has had little effect on the numbers visiting this country and that even more people are likely to come this year? Will he encourage American tourists by telling them that the world does not end at Watford and that there are parts of Lancashire well worth visiting, not least Hyndburn and Pendle?

Mr. Lee: As a fellow Lancastrian, may I wish my hon. Friend a reet good happy birthday? I am working closely with the North-West tourist board and Lancashire county council to encourage more tourism to Lancashire. With regard to Hyndburn and Pendle, I refer tourists to an excellent article which appeared in last month's Lancashire Life.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having meetings with Secretary Shultz and with King Hussein later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that because of the high nonattendance rate of patients, currently at 20 per cent., the waiting list for appointments at Sheffield's Hallamshire hospital ophthalmology, ear nose and throat clinic is now several months? That is typical. Is that something that my right hon. Friend will take into consideration during the review of the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that from time to time people who are called for operations do not turn up, for one reason or another. I hope that local health authorities will look into the matter. We shall, of course, have a wide-ranging review and take this into consideration. I know that some local health authorities, finding that this was a great trouble which caused operating theatre facilities and skills not to be fully used, established a list of people who

could come in at short notice, and thus they have been able substantially to reduce their waiting lists and the time taken to have operations. That is a good practice.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister stand by her manifesto commitment to bring more help to low-income families?

The Prime Minister: Of course we stand by our manifesto commitment. It is only because of the excellent growth that has been achieved by the Government that we are able to do that.

Mr. Kinnock: How can the Prime Minister sustain that claim when her own Minister for Social Security and the Disabled admits that, as a consequence of the social security changes coming into effect next month, a family with one parent in work, earning £100 a week, will lose £10·15 in cash, a lone mother in full-time work earning £80 a week will lose £12·60 in cash and all families with one wage earner earning less than £140 a week will lose some money? Is this what the Prime Minister meant, when she spoke about helping low-income families?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the overwhelming majority of low-income families will gain — [Interruption.]— from the social security changes. I think the right horn. Gentleman is referring to a particular list, which depends very much on whether or not they pay average rent. Many people in low-income families do not.

Mr. Kinnock: Is that all that the Prime Minister has to say to scores of thousands of people who are working, who earn relatively low incomes and who have one or two children? Are not those the very people whom the Prime Minister tells to stand on their own feet? How can they do that when she is deliberately dragging them down?

The Prime Minister: We are far from deliberately dragging those people down. They have much better prospects now, and they have had much better prospects, with increased tax thresholds, which they did not have under Labour. I am delighted, therefore, that we have a new recruit to the cause of reducing tax rates.

Mr. Boswell: Would my right hon. Friend care to tell the House how much low-income families have already benefited from the fact that tax allowances have gone up much faster than the rate of inflation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have put up the tax thresholds very much. That has been one of our priorities, as well as reducing the standard rate of income tax, all of which is very helpful, particularly to people on low incomes. I cannot go any further, for reasons of which my hon. Friend is well aware.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that Northern Ireland Ministers plan to introduce legislation imposing certain penalties, including contract compliance and grant denial, on firms alleged to be guilty of job discrimination? Does the Prime Minister intend to extend that legislation to the whole of the United Kingdom to satisfy the grievances, complaints and allegations of various minorities here in England?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome all efforts to ensure that there is no discrimination. It should be a matter only of merit


as to who gets a particular job and I hope that he will welcome that piece of legislation for Northern Ireland very warmly.

Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have a Health Minister visit the county of Shropshire to comprehend the importance of cottage hospitals to such an immense geographic area? At the same time, will she remind those who harp on about the level of hospital spending that the Government are financing the building of a £26 million giant hospital in the centre of the county? There is no cut in health spending in Shropshire.

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the district health authority, which has such excellent results. Since we announced a review of the Health Service we have been receiving details from a considerable number of authorities which say, "We have no cuts in ward services and no cuts in beds. We are not short of money because we are managing our resources well. We have excellent capital improvement, far better than we have ever had under any previous Government. We have more money, more staff, more doctors and more nurses."

Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March 1988.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Archer: Is the right hon. Lady planning to find time in her busy schedule to see a playback of the recent "World in Action" film "The Taming of the Beeb", in which she is portrayed as responding to criticism by declaring that the BBC must put its house in order? In view of the recent poll showing that the BBC is now seen as a Government poodle, is she satisfied that it has put its house in order? Is she now planning to send a similar message to the Church of England, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and Conservative peers?

The Prime Minister: I have great faith in both the chairman and deputy chairman of the BBC.

Mr. Budgen: In view of the recent discussion about the effect of high wage settlements, will my right hon. Friend state whether it is now her view that high wage settlements are a cause of inflation, or a consequence of inflation?

The Prime Minister: High wage settlements allied to high increased productivity do not have any effect on inflation. It is not a question of a wage settlement, but of a wage settlement in relation to what is obtained for it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is very much aware of that.

Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March 1988.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Europe without nuclear weapons would be very much at the mercy of the Soviet Union, particularly because of the Soviet Union's preponderance of and superiority in conventional and chemical weapons? Will she therefore give an undertaking to the House this afternoon that, when she goes to the NATO summit in Brussels at the end of this week, she will urge her colleagues not to negotiate on the question of nuclear weapons in Europe until, on the one

hand, we have parity of conventional forces in Europe and, on the other hand, we have been able to obtain agreement to negotiate away chemical weapons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear weapons will continue to play a vital part in our defence in deterring any potential aggressor. The history of two world wars shows that conventional weapons alone are not enough to deter war. I agree with my hon. Friend that after the coming 50 per cent. reduction in strategic ballistic missiles between the United States and the Soviet Union, the next arms control that should be negotiated should be to get conventional and chemical weapons down to parity. Only then should we return to consider nuclear weapons further.

Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Following the explosion at Crossmaglen last night and the revelation by Sir John Hermon that surface-to-air missiles, provided by Libya, are now in the hands of the Irish Republican Army, does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to counter terrorism is through the strengthening and consolidation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does she also agree about the need to establish a joint security commission, and that justice and security must march hand in hand?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should continue to try to achieve increased security co-operation through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and it is in the interests of those north of the border and in the interests of the Republic south of the border to do so. I do not agree that it would be wise to set up a security commission. I believe that justice north of the border is for the United Kingdom, and south of the border for the Republic.

Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct international flights into our regional airports are vital to the continued economic regeneration of those regions? Will she remind her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that three American airlines have made new applications for flights into Manchester, and that those negotiations should not become buried in matters related to landing charges at Heathrow or any other matters that do not directly concern Manchester?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree that it is important, for the prosperity of regional airports and to ensure that there is not too much congestion in the south, that international flights fly straight into regional airports. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been active in helping Manchester to get more international flights. Indeed, when I have been on overseas missions I have been active in trying to get more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be seeing people tomorrow about the matter that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend take the time today to consider whether an amendment might be introduced to the Local Government Bill to prevent Haringey council giving grants to a bookshop which is selling a disgusting comic called "The Scum", which mocks the death of PC Blakelock, who was killed only yards from that shop on the Broadwater farm estate?

The Prime Minister: Many people would be utterly revolted that any such thing should be on sale, let alone on sale from a bookshop which received a grant from a local authority —

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true?

The Prime Minister: If the report is correct, many people, including, I hope, most Opposition Members, would be utterly revolted by that. What is certain is that measures in the Local Government Bill will strengthen the ban on party political propaganda at public expense and will require local authorities to take proper account of the publicity code of practice that will shortly be placed before Parliament for approval.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Prime Minister has always taken every opportunity to condemn any act of terrorism, with the notable exceptions of the invasion of Grenada —[HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] — the support for the Nicaraguan Contras and, of course, the air raid on Libya, which was launched from Alconbury and Lakenheath. In view of the recent incontrovertible evidence of South African involvement in terrorism in Angola and other front-line African states, will the Prime Minister tell the House this afternoon whether that is a form of terrorism that she condones or condemns?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that one always condemns utterly terrorism and violence,

wherever they occur. They are not a way of solving problems. He will also be aware that there are many peace movements under way in connection with Nicaragua. We wish them success.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tax harmonisation, which is being aggressively pushed by the European Commission, is not necessary for Community free trade and that, in fact, more genuine free trade has existed between states with very different taxation systems? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that tax decisions affecting this country are taken by this House?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that tax harmonisation in the European Economic Community is not necessary for the completion of the single market in 1992. With regard to VAT, there are two quite distinct cases, one under the existing law, which is a directive approved by the Labour Government in 1977 and which became the existing law of the Community—and there have been recent cases decided under that — and the other, which my hon. Friend raises, which is a possible change in the law. In this case I have made it absolutely clear that we should vote against any legislation which deprived us of the ability to make our own decisions on the future of zero-rating for value added tax. Any such change could not go through the European Council except with unanimity, so we would be in a position to determine our own future.

Rover Group

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Rover Group.
As the House is aware, it is the common objective of the Government and of the Rover Group board to work for the return of the remaining businesses to the private sector. The Rover Group chairman, Mr. Graham Day, has in recent months been considering the options for achieving this.
I should inform the House that an approach has now been received from British Aerospace plc, which has declared a serious interest in acquiring Government shareholding in Rover Group, subject to the satisfactory outcome of negotiations which are now being put in hand. British Aerospace has asked that the negotiations be on an exclusive basis, and the Government have agreed to this, provided that negotiations are concluded by the end of April. If not, we would then be free to look at other options.
I shall, of course, report the outcome of these discussions to the House at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, I am sure that, like the Rover Group board and the Government, the House will welcome this interest.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Minister accept that his statement makes up in unexpectedness for what it lacks in industrial logic? What is the industrial logic behind such a merger? Is this not a further example of the sort of conglomerate merger which has served British industry so ill in the past?
What can British Aerospace bring to such a merger? It has no expertise in making commercial and motor vehicles, and its experience of selling into international defence markets hardly fits it to tackle the problem of selling into mass markets for motor cars.
Did the Minister take a hand in urging British Aerospace to the negotiating table? Will he explain what provision will be made to ensure a minimum British share in the joint enterprise? Will the minimum requirement for a 15 per cent. shareholding in British Aerospace, plus a golden share, together with the requirement that all directors be British citizens, be maintained in the joint enterprise? If so, what will be the position of Mr. Graham Day?
What is the significance of this merger for the link with Honda? If Honda withdrew, would British Aerospace be prepared to make up, through a capital investment programme, the deficiency that would be left? Have these developments been discussed at all with Honda? If so, what was its reaction?
Why has this statement been made only a matter of days before the Rover Group's annual results are expected, and what will happen to the Rover Group's accumulated debt if the merger goes ahead?
What guarantees will the Government obtain from British Aerospace about the maintenance of employment, about employee rights and about future investment plans for a new model range?
Does the Minister accept that there is more at stake than a clever solution to a short-term problem of his own creation? What is at stake is the viability of a fundamental

British industry, the survival and future of a crucial British technology and the continuation of thousands of British jobs in the Rover Group and British Aerospace.

Mr. Clarke: What I have announced is the opening of negotiations between the board of British Aerospace and the board of the Rover Group. I prefer the industrial logic of those who will be involved in the negotiations to the so-called industrial logic of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who speaks for the Opposition. He makes a comparison between the proposed merger and some of the conglomerate mergers of the past. He is no doubt thinking back to those conglomerate mergers which were arranged by Governments of which he was a supporter, which at times led to a considerable lack of success. We have moved away from the position where politicians such as he draw their grand conclusions one way or another about the desirability of conglomerate mergers.
The proposal was no result of any urging from the Government. It arose from discussions which began last month between the board of British Aerospace and Graham Day of the Rover Group, and the Government have come to Parliament at the earliest possible stage to inform the House that the negotiations are about to start seriously.
The logic of the merger was no doubt considered by the board of British Aerospace, which has obviously decided, in the interests of its company, to make this approach. It is not a surprising combination because quite a lot of similar combinations occur in the outside world among international companies in the same area. General Motors has a stake in Hughes; Fiat has aerospace interests; Saab has aerospace interests; and, as the House probably knows, Daimler-Benz is in discussions with Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm in Germany. It is for the companies to decide in the course of negotiations the extent to which their interests fit well together and their businesses will prosper.
My understanding from British Aerospace is that it is anxious to retain the services of Mr. Graham Day, but obviously at this stage he is involved with his colleagues in the Rover Group in the negotiations that are about to start.
We have informed Honda that the negotiations are about to start, by contacting the Japanese ambassador in London and by our ambassador in Japan contacting the Japanese Government. The first reaction from Honda is favourable. Certainly the Government would wish the co-operation with Honda to continue, and I believe that to be the wish of British Aerospace and the Rover Group.
The timing of the announcement was dictated by our need to inform Parliament as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman asked why we have made the announcement today. We made it today because it was the earliest opportunity, once we and the companies had decided that a serious process of negotiation should begin. It is as a result of those negotiations that all the other matters touched on by the hon. Gentleman will need to be addressed.
Obviously, the long-term employment prospects in the company depend on the success of the Rover business and its success in the market place. We will be in a position to judge, when the negotiations are completed, whether the merger is to proceed; we will then be in a position to judge whether it is in the interests of the business for the merger to go ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we have a heavy day in front of us, with an adjourned debate on Irish affairs, which must end at Ten o'clock? Will hon. Members put one question at a time?

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most sensible people will wish the negotiations well: that the long-suffering taxpayers have had to hold on and support this very expensive baby for far too long; and that the sooner the remaining 97 per cent. shareholding is returned fully to the private sector, the better it will be for everybody concerned?

Mr. Clarke: The Government have always made it clear that it is our view that the company should be returned to the private sector as soon as possible, so I agree with my hon. Friend: if the negotiations come to a successful conclusion I have no doubt that all those with a serious interest in the well-being of the British car industry will be satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Terry Davis: But has the Minister forgotten that last year British Aerospace needed Government money to finance the development of the Airbus? What assurances will he request to ensure that taxpayers' money is not recycled to buy the new Rover Group?

Mr. Clarke: I am astonished that Opposition Members, who allegedly have an interest in British industry, should suddenly start making denigrating remarks about British Aerospace — the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) did that, too. British Aerospace is, I believe, the major exporter of manufactured goods from this country. It received launch aid from the Government last year as part of the launch of a new range of Airbus products. They are selling well, and it is an extraordinary reaction for the Opposition suddenly to start attacking — for some reason — the management or business prospects of one of our major industrial companies. In the end, it is for the two companies to decide for themselves what is in the best interests of their businesses; I prefer their judgment to that of those on the Opposition Front Bench or Back Benches.

Mr. Hal Miller: While welcoming the early announcement to the House and the early action being taken by the Government to return the company to private ownership as a company, may I ask the Minister to make it clear that the deadline of 30 April is only for the exclusive period of negotiations with British Aerospace and that any other offer made, before or subsequently, would have to he considered by the Government?

Mr. Clarke: That is the case. British Aerospace asked to have exclusive rights of negotiations. It was the opinion of the Rover Group board that it was in the interests of its business that there should be exclusivity in the negotiations, and the Government agree. Before any deal is finalised, if one emerges from the negotiations, we should have to consider any other offers that were forthcoming.

Mr. A. J. Beith: British Aerospace, which must have been watching the Saab advertisements on television, might be a perfectly acceptable bidder for the Rover Group if it could put forward a reasonable scheme that will help the company,

but the exclusive arrangement gives rise to many worries. Is it the Government's view that there is no other bidder around that might be able 'to put the British car industry on a sound footing? If there is, why should it be kept out? If there is not, why the exclusive deal?

Mr. Clarke: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that British Aerospace could be an acceptable bidder in everyone's interest — those of the taxpayer, and of Austin Rover as a business, and hence of its employees, too. Because of that, the negotiations are starting and we must all await their outcome. I have just explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) the background to our agreement that negotiations should be exclusively with British Aerospace at this stage. We believe that that would be in the interests of the Rover Group business in particular, and that is also the view of the board.

Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, contrary to the moanings of Opposition Members, there will be a feeling of excitement among the many car workers throughout the west midlands at the announcement that the negotiations are to go forward? Is he aware that they will look on this as an opportunity of bringing together two excellent engineering disciplines to make a formidable engineering force in this country, and think it will be a great opportunity for both industries?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Where is the logic?

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's reaction. Car workers in the west midlands will be amazed to hear a few snide remarks made about British Aerospace, coupled with cries from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of, "Where is the logic?" That is the Opposition's reaction to the announcement.
In other countries, these sorts of business have come together with great success. British Aerospace is seeking to diversify its business, as it showed by its successful acquisition of the ordnance factories. We must now see whether the negotiations produce an acceptable result, which we shall consider in due course.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not true that the British Leyland group was a private enterprise disaster that was rescued by over £2·5 billion-worth of taxpayers' money? If the Rover Group is on the road to success, why should the taxpayers be denied the fruits of that success, having poured billions of pounds into the venture? Why should they be denied the fruits of their investment? Will the Minister say how components suppliers will be involved in these negotiations? Will they be involved in the negotiations at all? Hundreds of thousands of jobs are involved, including those at Hepworth and Grandage, which is in my constituency and which supplies 95 per cent. of the Rover Group's pistons? Will it be told to stand on the sidelines while a large part of its market is frittered away in these negotiations?

Mr. Clarke: It is true that the company has lost an enormous amount of money over recent years, and there are accumulated trading losses on its books. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is glad to see that the financial position of the Rover Group is improving. As he knows, towards the end of last year it announced that it expected to declare a trading profit for the financial year ending in 1987.
Negotiations are now going on about the commercial future of the company. Obviously, we must see where those negotiations lead. A deal will be concluded satisfactorily if something emerges that is in the interests of the Rover Group and British Aerospace, and therefore of all those whose interests depend on it.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that today's announcement is a reflection of the achievement of management and workers at British Aerospace, who have enabled the company, post-privatisation, to be able to declare such an interest?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly — British Aerospace has been doing extremely well. It is one of this country's blue chip companies that should expect the support of hon. Members in its present business activities. If it puts together a good deal, it should expect that support for its continuing activities as a major manufacturing company.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister accept that the concern of Labour Members and the workers who will be affected in the car and aerospace industries is about the capital for development for car models and aerospace projects for the future? What guarantees will the Minister be seeking as an outcome of these negotiations to ensure the future of models and jobs at Cowley, Longbridge and other plants?

Mr. Clarke: It is obviously the responsibility of those engaged in the management of a company to consider the future capital needs of the business and how they intend to meet them. No doubt the management will be addressing those problems in the course of these negotiations. The capital needs of businesses of this kind are best served when they are in the private sector competing successfully as private sector companies. No doubt the future capital needs of both businesses will be very much in the minds of those taking part in the discussions that are about to start.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment further on the complementary skills that this merger might bring after successful negotiations? Will he comment on the help that it will give component manufacturers supplying British Aerospace and Austin Rover, such as those based in Coventry and Birmingham, which are now being helped by the upturn in the economy?

Mr. Clarke: Obviously, it is for British Aerospace to explain its judgment that there is a clear relationship between the two businesses and that they could successfully complement each other. I know from my contacts that British Aerospace believes that to be the case. It thinks that it is a good opportunity to diversify, and that there is a great deal of synergy between the engineering skills used by both companies. They are both major manufacturers of engineered products, and in other countries similar groups seem to have sat together very well. We must wait to see whether a successful negotiation can be concluded to bring the two companies together on acceptable terms.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is it not clear that, despite the Government's climbdown of a couple of years ago, Mr. Graham Day was brought in by the

Government more as an undertaker than a physiotherapist, to prepare for the privatisation of the Rover Group? One of the key preparations for that privatisation occurred last year when he authorised the theft of £ 80 million of workers' deferred wages from the pension fund to make the balance sheet look more attractive for this bid from British Aerospace. To repeat the question that some of my hon. Friends have asked, what guarantees will the Minister seek from British Aerospace for continuity of employment? Experience of Leyland privatisations in Coventry at Self-Changing Gears, Alvis and Climax shows that workers have paid the price in unemployment.

Mr. Clarke: Graham Day was brought into British Leyland because of his considerable and undoubted managerial and business skills. His managerial skills and those of his team are one of the assets of the company and will no doubt be considered by the other company expressing an interest in acquiring it. I should certainly very much prefer Graham Day, with his judgment and skills, to anyone who might be appointed by Opposition Members on the advice of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to take over responsibility for a major industrial company.
In this industry, as in any other, continuity of employment depends on success in the market place; as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) pointed out, those who depend on the companies for their business well-being are going through a very satisfactory time.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember that commercial logic as exemplified by the Labour party's policy includes Meriden and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, and forcing Bristol Commercial Vehicles into the hands of British Leyland, which promptly closed it down? Does he not agree that it is regrettable that Opposition Members seek to denigrate British Aerospace—a company that produces goods that the world wants to buy and employs many thousands of our constituents?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and we must never return to the days when politicians decided that their judgments of commercial logic made more sense than those of business men and tried to draw companies together. We are now witnessing a knee-jerk reaction from Opposition Members. They are scratching about to try to find criticisms of British Aerospace to put a damper on the negotiations. We shall leave the negotiations to take their course. In the end, our decision will be based on a judgment of the best interests of taxpayer, business and employee.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The only reason why we are discussing Austin Rover is that public money kept volume car production going in that company. Furthermore, the Minister will recall that only last week his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, reminded the House that nearly £3 billion of taxpayers' money went to support Austin Rover. What guarantee can the Minister give that the taxpayer will get a decent return on the money invested before the company is privatised?

Mr. Clarke: We shall have to await the results of the negotiations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when the negotiations are concluded we shall have to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer are properly protected.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How?

Mr. Clarke: We shall accept an offer for the Government's shares only if we are satisfied that the taxpayers' interests are protected. In measuring those interests, one needs to consider the value of the business now. It is an extraordinary proposition to look back over the years and say that, because £2.9 billion was lost and had to be found by the taxpayer when that sum would otherwise have gone into public services of one kind or another, that is somehow a measure of the value of the business today. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the position and to accept my undertaking that, when the negotiations are concluded and a proposition is put to us, we shall ensure that the taxpayers' proper interests are safeguarded.

Mr. David Madel: If the discussions with British Aerospace did not come off, would the Government welcome a further approach from Ford or General Motors for the Rover Group?

Mr. Clarke: At the moment, we have agreed to negotiate only with British Aerospace. Obviously, if other companies come forward with propositions, we shall consider the options before us and, after the period of exclusivity that has been agreed — if the matter is still open—we shall consider whatever options are available.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the denigration of British Aerospace by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is unlikely to strike a chord with the Tornado workers in Lancashire, who are working on a £5 billion Tornado contract won by British Aerospace? Surely all those in the defence industry recognise the expertise of British Aerospace and that we are now the third biggest manufacturer of defence equipment in the world. That is something from which the car industry, of which British Leyland is part, will benefit considerably.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I share his surprise. I suspect that the reaction of Leyland workers will be similar to his and mine when they consider British Aerospace as prospective bidder for their business. It is one of our flagship companies and the major exporter of manufactured goods from this country. It is extraordinary for Opposition Members to imply that it is not a welcome suitor for an extremely important car business.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister reflect on the particular problem of the Rover-owned huge British Leyland site at Bathgate, which until 10 years ago was the biggest machine shop under one roof in Europe? To try to solve that difficult problem, would the Minister arrange for staff from his Department to meet British Aerospace, Rover, West Lothian district council and Lothian regional council before the buildings deteriorate any further?

Mr. Clarke: Bathgate stands rather as a monument to past political decisions on investment made by people who share the industrial logic of Opposition Members. I agree, however, that its closure was something of a disaster, and the redevelopment of the site and the establishment of new industry and employment for the people of the area is extremely important. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but my understanding is that there is indeed a prospect of

redevelopment of the former site. I shall check that information, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that many people, particularly in the west midlands, will be saying that, if the £2.9 billion that was handed out as a subsidy to keep the ailing Rover Group going finds its way into the pockets of the new group — [Interruption.] It will do so eventually. Is the Minister aware that those people may well say that they ought to have some of the money for the National Health Service in the west midlands?
Is the Minister further aware that, if British Aerospace could be fattened up with £400 million before it was sold off, some people might also say that, if they are going to build one of those gull-wing cars, they ought to be asking John De Lorean for some advice?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the £2.9 billion is not sitting there as some kind of nest egg put carefully aside by the taxpayer. It has all been lost.

Mr. Corbett: A lot of people want it back.

Mr. Clarke: A lot of people who have lost money want it back, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) points out. But, sad to say, it is not there to be got back. The people of the midlands, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, will no doubt reflect on what might have happened if the money had been available for the Health Service, or indeed for many other purposes.
The point of our present position is that Britain's industrial economy is revising. The Rover Group is reporting improved financial prospects. We have a negotiation in hand that may lead to the return of the Rover Group to the private sector. All this is opening up the prospect of our never again putting taxpayers' money down the drain in the way that we did in the past, to the tune of £2·9 billion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call hon. Members who have been standing, if they are brief, but I think that we must end these questions by 4.15.

Sir Dudley Smith: Given the excellent track record of British Aerospace, and despite what has just been said, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this is potentially excellent news for the west midlands? Is he aware that it is very important that the Rover Group should survive, not least because of the car components industry in the centre of England?

Mr. Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that everyone in the Government realises the key importance of the Rover Group to the economy of the west midlands. Our desire throughout has been to try to create a climate in which the Rover Group can return to profitability in due course, and be successful as a car manufacturer. We shall look at the deal from the point of view of the interests of the taxpayer, those of the Rover Group business and everything that flows from that.
It must indeed be very good news in the west midlands that the Rover Group is regarded as a potentially attractive acquisition by British Aerospace, and that serious negotiations can now begin.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the satisfied owner of two Austin Rover motor cars—a


rarity in the House, perhaps—and also as a pilot, may I say to my right hon. and learned Friend what an ideal merger this seems to me? Does he not agree that the financial strength of British Aerospace, its international marketing expertise and its engineering excellence make it not only the ideal but the No. 1 partner for Austin Rover?

Mr. Clarke: That is certainly the view of the British Aerospace board, and of the Rover Group. I agree that the sales record of Airbus in the civil sector, and that of British Aerospace in the military sector, show that the company is indeed attractive, and that we in this country should be proud of it.
We shall wait to see whether the merger takes place. In other countries, however, mergers between companies of this kind have been successful. I do not think that when General Motors and the Hughes Corporation of America joined up they were impeded by Socialist members of Congress crying out about the industrial logic.

Mr. Richard Page: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Rover Group does not have a cat in hell's chance of succeeding as a separate, individual private company? Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the Opposition that the £2·9 billion has gone for ever and that the company can only succeed in the future either under the umbrella of another established company or by being irrevocably linked with the taxpayer's pocket? If the merger talks do not succeed, will my right hon. and learned Friend look actively for other partners to take part in negotiations, so that the Rover Group will have a real chance of an independent future?

Mr. Clarke: I am extremely interested in the views of my hon. Friend, who has a considerable knowledge of the car industry and engineering generally. It is certainly true that British Aerospace is small in comparison with the companies with which it competes — McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed and so on. Rover Group is also quite a small company compared with its competitors in western Europe and elsewhere. No doubt size was one of the factors which led the two companies to contemplate entering into the present negotiations. I agree with my hon. Friend that the £2·9 billion has gone and it is a mark of past losses. We do not wish to see any repetition of that scale of loss-making.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is it not a tiny little bit ironic that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), should be whining about supposedly Government-inspired megamergers, when it was a Labour Government in the 1960s who forced together BMC and Leyland in the first place? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not prefer the industrial logic and experience of business men and industrialists to the ludicrous lack of logic of Opposition Members, most of whom have had no industrial experience whatever?

Mr. Clarke: I am entirely horrified by the prospect of the hon. Members for Dagenham and for Great Grimsby getting their heads together and deciding what suitable partners, if any, they would choose for the company. I agree with my hon. Friend that the method that we are

now adopting, which is to see how commercial negotiations proceed between the boards of the two companies, is a far more satisfactory route.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not thoroughly good news that Rover may be teaming up with a British company which spends millions of pounds every year on research and development and which can attach the same importance to the technology of Rover's product development?

Mr. Clarke: It is thoroughly good news, and the deafening silence now apparent on the Opposition Benches suggests that that thought may have occurred to them after the first rather reckless 10 minutes.

Mr. David Evans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend—

Mr. Nellist: What about the pensions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. He may not have had it fully answered, but he has asked it.

Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is very exciting and positive news? British Aerospace management has the capability and expertise to design, manufacture and sell in major world markets and it will, I hope, make Rover Group a most successful company, certainly equal to British Aerospace.

Mr. Clarke: That certainly could be the outcome of negotiations. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if negotiations come to a successful conclusion, it could represent the beginning of an extremely exciting phase in the business of both companies.

Mr. Michael Jack: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for coming to the House so early to make this announcement. Does he agree that the application of British Aerospace technology and quality control will do much to enhance the recovery of the Rover Group? Does he also agree that the prospects of merger create exciting prospects for employment? As robotics reduces the demand for labour in the car industry, that skilled labour can be actively and beneficially redeployed within the aerospace industry.

Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, British Aerospace is also interested in some of the engineering skills within the Rover Group. What the two companies are exploring is, I believe, the extent to which there is — to use the in phrase—natural synergy between the two businesses that could benefit the companies and prospects for employment within them.

Mr. Tony Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the disadvantages of a board choosing its own bidder is that board members can secure their own positions? Does he agree that the Rover Group board has not exactly covered itself with glory? Would it be an advantage to allow the market to decide—in other words to allow all comers to make a bid at this stage?

Mr. Clarke: In the end, the Government are the owner of 99.8 per cent. of the shares, and we shall have to make our judgment about the sale of the shares subject to the outcome of the negotiations. We will do that at the proper time. I have already said that, if other people wish to come forward with proposals at this time, we shall have to


consider them before we come to any final decision. If the current negotiations are unsuccessful, it remains the committed policy of the Government to return the Rover Group to the private sector during the lifetime of this Parliament. If the negotiations are successful, privatisation may come about very early in the lifetime of this Parliament; I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome that.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in any deal that may be struck with British Aerospace or any other suitor, an important feature for the taxpayer and the Government should be to ensure that contingent or direct liabilities currently falling upon the taxpayer are removed from the public sector?

Mr. Clarke: Once the business is privatised, we would obviously not be incurring any future liabilities from it. That should come as a considerable relief to the taxpayer, bearing in mind the history of the company, of which, surprisingly enough, Opposition Members keep reminding us during these exchanges.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: To what extent would the pension fund contribution to the balance sheet — referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—be a consideration for those who might be interested in this particular deal?

Mr. Clarke: At the moment, what I have announced is the opening of negotiations. The balance sheet is one of those things that must be looked at during the course of negotiations. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no asset in the pension fund played a significant part in the approach from British Aerospace.

Mr. Pat Wall: Will the Minister, who trumpets the revival of British industry the day after a £950 million deficit in the balance of payments, explain in more detail his attitude to the use of £80 million of the workers' pension fund to dress up the books of part of a company that had to be rescued from private enterprise in 1975? The books were dressed up to make the company more attractive for privatisation. Will the Minister give a guarantee that when he approves any merger, if it takes place, the workers' pension fund will not be used again for such activity?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must take up the question of the accounts and the pension fund arrangements with the management of the Rover Group. A pension fund, accumulated as a result of the

contributions from the employer and the employee, is used to defray the pension obligations that have been incurred by the company. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in recent years, a number of pension funds have been in surplus. As far as I am aware, the Rover Group has not done anything with its pension fund surplus that is out of line with commercial practice in other companies.

Mr. Gould: Is it not totally unsatisfactory that, throughout the past 37 minutes, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has disclaimed any responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations that he has announced today? Does he not accept that it is not just a matter of market forces and private negotiation? The Government, as the virtual sole owner of the Rover Group, cannot simply shuffle off their responsibilities in this way. Bearing that in mind, what responsibilities does he acknowledge, and how does he propose to discharge them, with regard to such items as the maintenance of employment, the protection of employee rights, including the pension rights mentioned by my hon. Friends, and the crucial maintenace of an investment programme for new models? Does the Minister intend at this stage to wash his hands of those questions, or will he now face up to his responsibilities?

Mr. Clarke: What I have announced today is that serious negotiations are about to start. I have not sought to anticipate the course of those negotiations. Obviously the Government will not come to a judgment about the outcome of the negotiations until they have made more progress and they have been completed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Where is the logic in that?

Mr. Clarke: We have the logic mentioned again by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
The hon. Member for Dagenham appears to believe that, once we announced the start of negotiations, he, in his wisdom, together with his hon. Friends, should immediately start jumping to their conclusions about various aspects that may or may not be raised. I believe that the Government have acted with the utmost propriety by notifying the House straight away that negotiations are about to start. We are waiting to see what those negotiations will produce and we will judge them at the right time. We shall judge them according to the interests of the taxpayer, Rover Group business and its employees. That is the proper way to proceed. All those who want to behave with a sense of responsibility and who have the genuine interests of the Rover Group and British Aerospace at heart should behave in the same way. I hope that, on reflection, the Opposition will do so.

Cervical Cancer (Testing and Treatment)

Mr. Jimmy Wray: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a body known as the National Cervical Cancer Service, which will be responsible within the National Health Service, for managing a national system for making cervical cancer tests available once every three years to all women aged between 20 and 65 years, and for supervising the provision of treatment for cervical cancer; to provide for the making of tests by doctors acceptable to the women concerned; to provide through the National Cervical Cancer Service for action to make women aware of the need for such tests; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill would require the establishment of a nationally managed computer-based system of testing for, and the subsequent swift treatment of, cervical cancer for all women between the ages of 20 and 65, for all women to be tested once every three years, and for that service to be adequately and fully funded by the DHSS.
The Bill is simple, but it could virtually eliminate 2,000 needless deaths of women throughout the United Kingdom every year. I know that women in my constituency are dying needlessly of cervical cancer. It is certain that women are dying needlessly in every constituency in the United Kingdom, as 2,000 women every year die of cervical cancer, although, detected in its early stages, it can almost always be cured completely.
The smear test is simple, only slightly uncomfortable for the women concerned and can be carried out by a GP or a trained nurse. The resultant smear is captured on a glass slide and sent for analysis to a cytopathology laboratory. Examination there can reveal that a patient has nothing to worry about or that she should report to the appropriate hospital for straightforward treatment that almost always results in a complete cure.
It is a public scandal that women have to wait five months for colposcopy clinical tests and nine months for laser tests for that treatment. Despite that comparatively simple cycle of test and treatment, some 2,000 women die of cervical cancer every year in Britain.
Investigation shows that more than 60 per cent. of those who die have never had a cervical smear test. Obviously, the current system is not working, although the Government aim for the testing of every woman in the United Kingdom between the ages of 20 and 65 once every five years. The cost of carrying that out effectively is estimated at some £30 million, and it should give 70 per cent. protection to those at risk. However, testing the same age range of women once every three years would give 90 per cent. protection and would cost only £20 million more.
That is a small cost, by comparison with a weapons system, which we should hardly begrudge a vital area of preventive medicine. Such a screening policy almost certainly could be implemented within the existing National Health Service budget if the screening programme were to effectively managed on a national scale, supported by compatible computer sytems in doctors's surgeries and in FPCs and cytopathology laboratories equipped with specifically designed information technology systems.
Currently, the British programme is not effective because the majority of smears have been taken from women in the lower-risk categories. That is because most

smears are taken during obstetric and contraceptive consultations which normally arise in the cases of women under the age of 40, the age group least at risk.
The five-year gap between screenings, the poor management of call-recall systems, the reliance upon manual records instead of computerised systems, the reluctance of many GPs to carry out preventive medicine, the natural fear of women faced with the word "cancer" and poor eductional programmes, all lead to women neglecting or forgetting to obtain a smear test.
However, the computerisation of family practitioner committee lists and of some GPs' patient records means that an operational database is being built up, but it is taking place in a piecemeal, undirected fashion which negates its potential. For the scheme to work successfully, there needs to be a nationwide scheme based upon compatible computer systems with common operating standards and management procedures.
There is also a need to equip cytopathology laboratories in every health authority with specific computer systems that will handle all data arising out of the prevention of cervical pre-cancer and will embrace fine needle aspiration cytology, endoscopic "brushes" and general cytology such as sputum and other body fluid samples. Such a computer system should be capable of being extended to handle breast data. Those systems should interact with the FPC computer systems.
So far, less than 25 per cent. of Britain's 200 cytopathology laboratories are equipped with adequate computer systems. That lack of provision seriously hampers the successful operation of Britain's national screening programme and contributes significantly to the figure of 2,000 women dying needlessly every year.
The Government appear to believe that they have done all that is necessary by at long last computerising FPCs. However, because of the Government's negative attitude towards funding, FPCs have been unable to recruit and maintain staff of a standard high enough to deal effectively with the vast data handling. Existing patient records have a serious error rate of 30 per cent. Data entry is likely to be slow and to require constant revalidation. FPCs are commending call programmes without reference to existing GP-based systems in their areas. That causes repetition of testing and alarm to women recently tested by their GPs.
Furthermore, the FPC computer systems have not been designed to handle interaction with a cytopathology laboratory computer system. In due time, and with improved management, all those barriers to a successful call-recall system may be overcome, but it could take several years—an unacceptable delay, considering those 2,000 needless deaths every year.
Current cytopathology laboratory computer systems, such as the one already operating at Southampton's general hospital can handle call-recall systems via GPs and, keep FPCs informed so that records can be updated. They can do that in addition to their laboratory-related work.
In order to increase the productivity of all United Kingdom cytopathology laboratories so that none fails to meet the Government guideline of turning round smear screenings in under a month, and so that significant improvements in the call-recall system can be achieved prior to the eventual tardy implementation of the national FPC system, the Government should establish a body entitled the national cervical cancer testing service.
That body should be established under the authority of the Department of Health and Social Security, which will have responsibility for establishing, managing and implementing a nationwide common system for the testing for cervical cancer once every three years of all women between the ages of 20 and 65. That service would be responsible for ensuring that all women whose health was found to be at risk would receive adequate and timely treatment.
That body would be charged with meeting the following basic requirements: the provision of adequate resources for taking, examining and reporting on cervical smears and the provision of adequate, computer-based clerical systems for the making and keeping of examination appointments.
In Scandinavia, it is national policy to treat all symptoms of illness detected during screening for cervical cancer even if they are not cancerous conditions. That has raised the general health level of women considerably.
The Government have given guidance in their new DHSS health circular issued on 12 January 1988 that their objective is to reduce mortality from cervical cancer by regularly screening all women at risk to identify and treat conditions that might otherwise develop into cancer. It goes on to ask district and regional health authorities to implement the circular's provisions.
As usual, the Government are long on exhortation and short on properly financed action. I remind those Ministers responsible that each of the 2,000 needless deaths of women each year costs the United Kingdom some £15,000. That sum does not take into account the considerable additional costs that arise in state support—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now bring his remarks to an end?

Mr. Wray: If humanitarian grounds do not move the Administration, perhaps the prospect of financial savings will. I beg my colleagues to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jimmy Wray, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Harriet Harman, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Don Dixon, Dr. Lewis Moonie and Mr. Alan Meale.

CERVICAL CANCER (TESTING AND TREATMENT)

Mr. Jimmy Wray accordingly presented a Bill to establish a body known as the National Cervical Cancer Service, which will be responsible within the National Health Service, for managing a national system for making cervical cancer tests available once every three years to all women aged between 20 and 65 years, and for supervising the provision of treatment for cervical cancer; to provide for the making of tests by doctors acceptable to the women concerned; to provide through the National Cervical Cancer Service for action to make women aware of the need for such tests; and for purposes connected therewith. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting—

(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), if proceedings on the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988 have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Ten o'clock put the Question thereon; and
(2) Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary King relating to the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 with the substitution of One o'clock, or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1) (b) of the Standing Order. —[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Unemployment Benefit

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
That the draft Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
As the House will be aware, disqualification for unemployment benefit in various circumstances that are broadly termed "voluntary unemployment" has been part of the unemployment insurance scheme since 1911. Originally, disqualification was set at a maximum of six weeks and the Social Security Act 1975 maintained that figure while retaining the principle as well. However, the period was extended to a maximum of 13 weeks in 1986.
The present draft order has one clear purpose. It extends from 13 weeks to 26 weeks the maximum period during which someone may be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit if his unemployment is brought about by his own action or failure.
Undoubtedly someone who is in whole or in part responsible for his lack of work should not be able freely to draw benefit. Under current legislation, a person may be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for a maximum of 13 weeks in various circumstances that are generally termed "voluntary unemployment". As I announced to the House on 10 November, we now intend to strengthen that sanction.
We propose to extend the period to a maximum of 26 weeks. At the same time, we are amending the regulations relating to members of the armed forces to bring them into line. They contain a provision whereby a person who was a serving member of the forces is disqualified from benefit for a fixed period if he is discharged, cashiered or otherwise dismissed. If the House approves the order, that period will cease to be fixed and will become a maximum of 26 weeks.
We also intend to continue the position that someone who is disqualified from receiving benefit in any of those circumstances will have any income support to which he may be due reduced for the same period. The relevant legislation for this will be introduced shortly with other income support changes in amendments to the Income Support (General) Regulations. I stress that in all those situations the 26-week period that I have mentioned will be the maximum that can be imposed.
As the law stands at the moment, a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he loses a job through misconduct or leaves one voluntarily without just cause, or if he refuses a suitable job vacancy, fails to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity of receiving approved training or fails, without good cause, to carry out official recommendations to help him to find suitable employment. The current Employment Bill provides for the circumstances of disqualification to be extended to people who have lost a place on an approved training scheme through misconduct or have left such a place voluntarily without good cause and also to those who refuse without good cause to apply for or accept such a place.
In any case of voluntary unemployment, if a claim for supplementary benefit is made, entitlement is reduced, normally by deducting 40 per cent. from the claimant's personal benefit rate. Amounts for dependants are not so

reduced. The deduction is at the lesser rate of 20 per cent. if any member of the household is either pregnant or seriously ill and the claimant's capital does not exceed £100. The £100 capital limit is being raised to £200 with the introduction of income support in April.
The maximum period for disqualification for the various situations of "voluntary unemployment" was increased to 13 weeks in October 1986. However, for people leaving the armed services, there was no such change. For them the period has remained at six weeks. People leaving the armed forces are not, and never have been, subject to a penalty for leaving voluntarily. Nor has the period of disqualification for people dismissed from the armed forces ever been other than a fixed period penalty, leaving no room for former service men to show good reasons for the imposition of a lesser disqualification period. Following discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we have decided that, in equity, former members of the forces should be subject to the same maximum—and flexible—penalty as other people.
The House will wish to know why, having increased the maximum period of disqualification to 13 weeks in 1986, we are now introducing a further increase. A main purpose of the voluntary unemployment sanctions is to discourage people from acting in a way which leaves them unnecessarily without work and a charge on the public purse. There will, I imagine, be few who will quarrel with the general principle.
Following the 1986 change, one would have expected the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of "voluntary unemployment" to have fallen. On the contrary, the absolute number of instances where a disqualification or deduction was imposed rose, and that was at a time when, because of a strengthening economy, there was much work around and total claims for benefit from unemployed people were dropping significantly. The Government have concluded that more effective measures are required to discourage voluntary unemployment. Hence the increased maximum period that we are proposing.
Disqualifications are not imposed indiscriminately. Decisions on unemployment benefit and on the circumstances to which a disqualification or benefit deduction should be made are, as hon. Members on both sides of the House well know, taken by independent adjudicating authorities. The adjudication officers are the first tier of those authorities. Decisions are reached on the basis of applying the legislation governing the benefit, and the relevant case law, built up over the years, to the circumstances of the individual case. In ascertaining the facts, inquiries are made of the former employer, and the claimant is given the chance to comment on the employer's statement and to offer his own account of events.
The length of any disqualification is for the adjudication officer to decide. The chief adjudication officer's advice to local adjudication officers is that in each case
a sensible discretion has to be exercised in such manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account.
He also points out:
the statutory authorities have a complete, unfettered discretion, provided it is exercised judicially.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with an adjudication officer's decision has the right of appeal to an independent


social security appeal tribunal, and from there, on a point of law, to a social security commissioner. In view of the quite proper independence of the adjudicating authorities, neither I nor any other Minister or departmental official can influence or interfere with their decisions.
This is a long-standing adjudication system which people who have experience of it believe to work well. We are not proposing any changes in the way in which the benefits will be administered or the decisions taken. Matters will still be decided by the independent adjudicating officers and there will still be the right of appeal against an adverse decision to an independent tribunal. Appeals can be taken on the length of a disqualification period as well as on the imposition of any period at all. All we are proposing now is to increase the maximum period for which the adjudicating authorities can impose a disqualification.
It is obviously not right, and never has been, under a Government of either party, that someone should be able to draw benefit without penalty if his unemployment is due to some action or omission on his part for which he has no acceptable reason. Someone dissatisfed with a job should not give it up lightly and expect to receive benefit. He or she should do everything reasonable to avoid becoming a charge on public funds, funds which are contributed to by many others who may be equally concerned to better their situation but who avoid precipitate or irresponsible action.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Knowing people who, in past years, have suffered from this sort of thing, could I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain precisely what he means when he says that a person should not lightly give up a job? Does he honestly believe that an ordinary working person who has to live on a weekly income gives up a job lightly? Could it not be that someone is working under very bad conditions? The employer might say that they are good conditions, but that worker cannot tolerate them any longer; so he leaves the job and finds himself in this situation.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is going back to the principle which, if he was here at the beginning of my remarks, he will remember I said has been established since 1911. Other amendments to it have been introduced. A reduction in social security benefits was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. The principle has not been challenged before.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a moment. The principle is not at issue, and that is what the hon. Gentleman has raised. The point that we are discussing today is the maximum period that adjudicating officers ought to impose in a situation in which voluntary unemployment takes place. The hon. Gentleman seems to me to be challenging the principle, and I do not believe that that is at issue. What we are arguing about today is whether it is right that this period should be extended from 13 weeks to 26 weeks at a time when unemployment has been consistently falling for many months, opportunities for employment are growing, and yet the incidence of unemployment has been growing. In those circumstances, I believe that the Government are justified in taking this step.

Mr. Heffer: He does not understand.

Mr. Scott: Of course I understand.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has now said twice that, since the increase to 13 weeks was made, the number of those registering as voluntarily unemployed has increased. He will be aware of the answer that was given in the House only last month, which showed that, in the first three quarters after the increase to 13 weeks, there was a steady decline in the number held to be voluntarily unemployed, from 113,000 in the first quarter to 98,000 four quarters later. The numbers are reducing, not going up, and the Minister really cannot mislead the House twice in the same speech.

Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of misleading the House, but will listen quietly for a moment while I explain to him exactly what the figures are.
A parliamentary question was answered and it was, in a sense, quite right to suggest that during the period covered by that answer the figures had been falling. Nevertheless, the aggregate over the three quarters since the maximum period was increased from six to 13 weeks had increased compared with the same period a year earlier. Over the nine months from October 1985, there were 306,000 disqualifications, compared with 310,000 in the corresponding nine months from October 1986. That shows an increase of just under 2 per cent. As I say, that has to be set against the background of the drop in unemployment, the increase in the number of vacancies, and therefore the increasing opportunities for employment. Disqualifications have therefore risen over that period from 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. of the total claims for that period.

Mr. Cook: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that we have to impose this 100 per cent. increase in the period of disqualification because of a mere 2 per cent. increase in the numbers registering as voluntarily unemployed—an increase of a mere 5,000 out of a total of 300,000? If that is the best that the Minister can do, he might as well pack up now and withdraw this order.

Mr. Scott: For the quarters referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the increase in the percentage of claims where disqualification applied was 26 per cent. That is the figure that he ought to have in his mind. Perhaps he would go back to his books and check the figures.

Mr. Cook: It is not; it is—

Mr. Scott: It is 26 per cent.

Mr. Cook: The Minister must not mislead the House. No figures have been introduced, either by the Secretary of State in Committee or in Written Answers, that suggest the increase of 26 per cent. to which the Minister is referring. He must produce an entirely different set of figures, which will be wholly incompatible with answers given in the House by his colleagues.

Mr. Scott: The increase was in the proportion of the cases in which disqualification was applied and therefore the independent adjudicating authority made a judgment that voluntary unemployment took place. That is the basis of the figure, and that is the principle on which this has been operated for many years under both Governments. The hon. Gentleman cannot duck away from that.
The whole House recognises that unemployed people face considerable difficulties, even in an expanding jobs


market such as we have at the moment. Our aim as a Government is to respond constructively and positively to the task of helping the unemployed back to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is developing major initiatives in the area of employment and training to help people to find jobs and guide them to the training and other opportunities that will enable them to return to employment. It surely makes sense—perhaps I can even carry the Opposition Front Bench with me on this—to ensure that the benefit system does not offer people an acceptable alternative of unemployment benefit when useful training or employment is available to them. It is important to continue to discourage voluntary unemployment, and the purpose of this order is to do just that. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: In the six months for which I have held this Opposition brief, I have never taken so much pleasure in rising to oppose an order in the House. I regard this order as brutal and vindictive, and the Minister's speech as intellectually indolent and morally in a state of paralysis.
This is not a fringe matter; 400,000 people suffer from this rule every year. That is a number equivalent to the population of Edinburgh or Bristol. Most of those who have the rule applied to them lose all entitlement to benefit. A minority succeed in getting social security benefit in place of unemployment benefit, and they then have 40 per cent. of that social security docked for the period of the penalty. What makes these numbers so scandalous is that there is clear evidence that in the majority of the cases the rule is applied in error.
Let me put the debate in perspective by talking not about numbers but about individual cases—and I hope that the House will acquit me of any abuse of my privilege on the Front Bench if I begin by referring to a constituency case that I dealt with just before Christmas. It concerned a constituent who was a bus driver in a company which had been privatised by the Government, He had been encouraged, under his right to buy, to purchase his public sector house. He was clearly a man of our time in a company which had been privatised, buying his public sector house.
That man found, because his overtime was cut, that he could not afford his mortgage payments. He therefore decided, rather than lose the house wen he was threatened with repossession, to pay the mortgage and not pay his rates. The local authority took action to enforce payment of the rates. They arrested his wages. The bus company, as a matter of principle, will not employ people who have their rates arrested. They dismissed him. When he turned up to claim unemployment benefit, it was withheld for 13 weeks on the ground that he had been dismissed for industrial misconduct.
Is the Minister prepared to justify that case? Is he prepared to say that the rule was properly applied in that case? Is he prepared to say that it is that sort of case that he has in mind when he comes to the House to double the penalty period to 26 weeks?
Hon. Members will have had circulated to them the document prepared by the Low Pay Unit on the basis of

similar cases which have been sent to them by citizens advice bureaux throughout the country. Let me share with the House two such cases.
In the east midlands, a 17-year-old man resigned because he was expected to work over 12 hours per day, seven days per week. The adjudication officer imposed a four-week disqualification for leaving his job voluntarily. Is the Minister prepared to defend that case? Is he prepared to say that that is a case in which the penalty period should be doubled? Before he does so, I must tell him that it is an offence under the Factories Act 1961 to expect a person of that age to work those hours. Yet when that young man gave up the job, he incurred a penalty in the withdrawal of benefit.
One other case, from the same document, referred to a Buckinghamshire woman who was advised by her doctor to give up her job, which involved heavy lifting, following the threat of a miscarriage. She was disqualified from benefit. Is she the type of case which the Minister has in mind when he proposes that we double the period of disqualification? The fact that the Minister does not have the courage to get up and say that these are the cases which he has in mind suggests to me that even he is not prepared to defend the very people to whom the rule applies and who will now suffer twice the penalty because of the order.

Mr. Scott: First, what we are doing is increasing the maximum, not saying that that is the penalty which will be imposed in all cases, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. Secondly, these are matters for the independent adjudicating authorities, as I made clear. The report has been drawn to the attention of the chief adjudication officer and it is for him to decide what note he takes of it and what guidance he issues to local adjudication officers.

Mr. Cook: Very well; let us move on to what the chief adjudication officer says.
Having listened to the Minister's speech, I find it difficult to credit that he bothered to read the annual report submitted to him by the chief adjudication officer. If he had done so, he would have seen that in 1985, in the cases inspected where the rule was applied, the chief adjudication officer found that one in four was defective. In his 1986 report, he found that the position had got even worse and that almost one in three decisions was defective. That is the independent adjudication proceedings to which the Minister has referred. When the Minister says that the system is adequate and competent, as he did in his speech, he appears to be leaving out the opinion of the chief adjudication officer, who plainly does not regard it as adequate or competent.
The Minister has to accept responsibility for the errors. One reason why there are so many defective decisions is that, staggering though it may be for the House to hear it, each adjudication officer is allowed 16 minutes to decide on each case.

Mr. Scott: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cook: The Minister shakes his head. It is there in the 1986 report of the chief adjudication officer, who said:
In all the Area Adjudication Sections visited it was a constant complaint from AOs that the time allowance was unrealistically low in today's circumstances … Improvement in the quality of decision-making is unlikely to occur if the number of decisions expected from each AO is as high as present.
The Minister need not shake his head. It is his own people who say this.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman should be more careful. He said that was the maximum period allowed. That is the average period taken. Obviously some cases are more complex than others. The hon. Gentleman must understand the difference.

Mr. Cook: The Minister has confirmed that the time taken on these cases is 16 minutes. I concede that that is the average rather than the maximum time, but it is still an average for each case. What is clear from the chief adjudication officer's report is that he was recommending more staff and longer time. The Minister has not provided that; he must take responsibility for that and for the fact that one in three decisions are wrong.
Moreover, the proportion of one in three refers to cases which are taken at random by the chief adjudication officer for investigation. If we consider the cases of claimants who had the confidence to appeal, we find that the figures are even worse. In the social security statistics for 1986, we discover that 22 per cent. of the cases where an appeal was lodged were changed on review; in other words, they were abandoned by the Department before they even got to the tribunal because they were so weak. Of the cases which continued to a tribunal, 29 per cent. were successful on appeal. In other words, in total over half of all the cases where an appeal was lodged were reversed. That was 1986,.
The figures for 1987 are even worse. We have the figures only for the first quarter of 1987, but they show that the number successful on appeal was not 29 per cent., as in 1986, but 46 per cent. If the number changed on review remains the same at 22 per cent., that means that two thirds of the cases where an appeal was lodged were abandoned before appeal, or were overturned by the tribunal.
Unless the Minister clambers back to the Dispatch Box and claims that the appeal provides the right of remedy, may I point out to him the answer given in another place last month which noted that it takes 17 weeks for an appeal to be heard? In other words, people cannot get their appeals heard and discharged within the present period of penalty of 13 weeks. It is only after the penalty period has been endured that they will succeed in getting their money backpaid. If the House is unwise enough to approve the order this evening, people will at least have their appeals heard within the 26-week penalty period.
Given all that evidence of official error and of unsuccessful cases at appeal, one is bound to say that the responsibility of Ministers might have been to concentrate on improving the rate of official decision-making, and at least on getting it up to a pass rate. Instead, Ministers have brought the order before the House to double the penalty period. As the Minister has fairly admitted, from 1911 to 1986, Governments of three different political colours all took the view that six weeks was an adequate maximum period. That period of six weeks survived through the mass unemployment of the thirties and through the very low employment levels of the fifties, when voluntary unemployment might have been regarded as a larger problem.
Moreover, during all that period it was always a temporary postponement and never a permanent loss, although I note that Ministers have given themselves the power to make this a permanent loss and to ensure that the six months are deducted from entitlement to unemployment benefit in the future.
The Minister stressed that 26 weeks and 13 weeks were maximum periods. I want to comment on the fact that the period of 13 weeks has proved to be not so much a maximum as the norm. Here I come to what I regard as one of the most objectionable features of the order — that both Ministers have sought to give the House misleading figures.
I start with the Under-Secretary of State. In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who had asked him what figures he possessed on the number of times when the full 13 week penalty was applied, he said:
Information is not collected on the length of disqualifications and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost." — [Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 698.]
I have before me a letter from Mr. Bowen, secretary to the management side of the Department of Employment Whitley council. The letter is dated 18 February 1988, the same day as the Minister's reply. The subject of the letter is
Monitoring the voluntary employment changes — extension of period of disqualifications".
The letter says:
The results of this survey will not be published.
That is hardly surprising. The Minister has just told the House that the figures do not exist.
However, the following information was obtained from part of the survey:

(a) 75 per cent. of disqualifications were for the full 13 week period;
(b) The average length of disqualification was a little over 11½ weeks."

There are two conclusions from that letter. First, the Under-Secretary of State chose deliberately to suppress information which was available to the Government and which was in existence within the Government when he tabled that answer. It was a deliberate attempt to withhold information which the House required in making up its mind on the order. One can understand why the Government sought to suppress the information and not to publish it, because it shows that in three quarters of the cases the maximum penalty is applied. If we pass the order, we can expect that in three quarters of the cases the maximum 26 weeks' suspension will be imposed and that the average on that basis will work out at 23 weeks.
Why the change? The Minister sought to give as a reason for change the fact that the number had increased since the increase in the penalty period from six weeks to 13. There is a massive fault line in that logic. If doubling the penalty from six weeks to 13 weeks is accompanied by a rise in the number of people voluntarily unemployed., it scarcely makes the case for coming to the House and asking us to double it again. In any event, that is simply not true. The Minister is shifting his ground rapidly in respect of the basis on which he founds the order. He said:
over the nine months from October 1986, when the maximum disqualification period was increased from six weeks to 13 weeks, the number of claims from people leaving work for this reason has increased".—[Official Report, 10 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 155.]
As the Minister was obliged to admit to the House, that is now seen not to be true.
In the quarter to September 1986, 113,000 people were held to be voluntarily unemployed. Four quarters later, in the quarter to June 1987, that figure had fallen to 98,000. On 10 November, the Minister made a statement which was not true and which he was in a reasonable position to


identify as not being true. The grounds on which he made that announcement to the House and to the press are now seen to be wholly false.
Why, then, do the Government go to the trouble of persisting with the order when, logically, the case of 10 November having been exposed, they ought to withdraw it? The order will save them a bit of pin money, some £25 million in a full year. The unemployment unit claims that it will cut unemployment figures by some 20,000 a month, but—here I differ from my hon. Friends—surely not even this Government could go through the odium of producing such a mean and nasty measure for such meagre pickings.
The order fits in with so much else that we have seen from the Government over the past year, such as the withdrawal of benefit rights from 16 and 17-year-olds. It fits in with their strategy of blaming the victim for his or her problems. Conservative Members do not care whether it is the right or wrong decision or whether somebody is voluntarily unemployed. Provided that large numbers are held to be voluntarily unemployed, the measure will encourage a culture in which the unemployed are blamed for being unemployed of their own choice.
The victims will be the unemployed and their families. The measure will hit their families. The 40 per cent. deduction for 13 weeks, now to be extended to 26 weeks, is only on that part of the benefit for the claimant himself. It is not a 40 per cent. deduction from the payment for his dependants, but anyone who believes that one can claw away 40 per cent. of the benefit from the principal claimant without affecting his family does not live in the real world. When the family sits down together for a meal, the senior claimant will not get 40 per cent. less food on his plate compared with the rest of his family round the table. The misery and hunger — there will be hunger— will be shared equally by the family.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment. To their credit, two Conservative Members tried to live on supplementary benefit, but both of them failed within a week. Neither of them even attempted to live on supplementary benefit of £13 less a week.

Mr. Scott: Such principles were not accepted by the Labour Government in 1948 when they reduced the national assistance entitlement for the same period as the unemployment disqualification period.

Mr. Cook: With great respect, there was not a Labour Government in 1911 when the principle was introduced. This goes back to 1911, and spans Governments of all three colours.
The Minister is introducing a different principle, which he has clearly espoused today. The previous Minister of State said the same in Committee. The six-week period was a de minimis provision. I do not object to that provision, which was in effect the excess clause in the insurance policy. If one is held to be unemployed for six weeks or one is between jobs and has voluntarily given up one's job, there is no particular reason why the state should be obliged to pay unemployment benefit. I accept that that

is reasonable, to protect the state against minimal claims for that period by excluding a modest period, such as six weeks.
The period could be seven weeks or five weeks, but 13 weeks, and now 26 weeks, is not a de minimis provision. It is not an excess clause, nor did the Minister attempt to defend it as such. It is intended as a penalty.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Cook: Conservative Back-Bench Members are being more honest about this. This is a penalty intended to penalise the unemployed for being unemployed.

Mr. Favell: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that somebody who is voluntarily unemployed should receive the same amount as somebody who is unemployed through no fault of their own?

Mr. Cook: I wonder whether the Minister—

Mr. Favell: Answer the question.

Mr. Cook: I shall answer the question, but, from the fatuous nature of the hon. Gentleman's question, I wonder whether he has been listening to my speech. The majority of those people to whom this rule is applied are not voluntarily unemployed, and no reasonable person in this House would hold them to be voluntarily unemployed. In the majority of cases, the rule is applied to people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own and find themselves unemployed, perhaps for a lengthy period.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman is, candidly, yes: those people's families are entitled to the same diet, clothes and heating allowances as the families of other unemployed people. I see no reason why we should hit their children as well.
There is a moral point behind the order. It is not a matter of statistics or individual cases of hardship. Decent incomes are enjoyed by the people who prepared the order. They are enjoyed by the Ministers who made the policy decision to introduce the measure. They are enjoyed by the civil servants who drafted the policy papers from which the Government selected this option. Decent incomes are enjoyed by the parliamentary draftsmen who reduced the measure to legal language. They are enjoyed even by Back-Bench Members of Parliament who, when the bell is rung, will no doubt troop loyally through the Lobby like Pavlov's dogs, and vote for the measure.
Those decent incomes provide a grotesque contrast with the poverty of the claimants whom those people are conspiring to penalise. That contrast makes the order a moral issue. I have not used the word "evil" before in the House, and I do not use it lightly on this occasion, but the order is evil. It has been introduced by Ministers who have given up any pretence that their job is to protect the unemployed against poverty and who are determined to ensure that the unemployed are kept in poverty. We shall vote against both orders tonight.

Dame Jill Knight: I wish that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would speak much more often both inside and outside the House; the more he speaks, the more he makes the case of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
I was amazed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and I listened with great care. He attempted to wring the withers of the House by describing three


heartbreaking cases in his constituency. The first concerned a gentleman who drove a bus and the second concerned a person who was expected to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week — just like a Member of Parliament. He mentioned another case involving a pregnant woman who was unable to carry out her duties and was unfairly sacked.
The hon. Gentleman had gone into that at some length when my hon. Friend the Minister of State rose and said, "Hang on a minute. There is such a thing as independent adjudication rights in such cases." The hon. Gentleman then went on to give an extraordinary reading of the findings of those adjudication officials. He said that a quarter of the decisions were overruled. That meant that three quarters were all right. In another instance, he said that a third of the cases to come before adjudication officers were wrong. That meant that two thirds were right.
A little later, 1 found it extraordinary that he referred to a pass rate. He said that 29 per cent. —shock horror — of the cases that went before adjudication officers were overturned. However, that is not a pass rate and, as a matter of fact, 71 per cent. were OK, and 71 per cent. is a good pass rate.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with care. Has it not struck her that the basic case that my hon. Friend was making is that, if one takes account of all those wrong decisions, the Government's case that the figures have risen significantly falls apart at the seams?

Dame Jill Knight: No, the hon. Gentleman said exactly what I am saying he said. He claimed that, because in one quarter of the cases that went before the adjudication process, the applicant won through, that shows that the whole thing was absolutely appalling. However, he did not mention the fact that three quarters of those original decisions were right, and surely that is what we should be talking about. I have no doubt that the cases that he put to the House would have been in the quarter, the third or the 29 per cent. that were overturned, because from the way in which he described them I certainly would not accept that in such cases the person had been fairly denied benefit. The hon. Member for Livingston must understand that he is using a double-edged weapon and that what he has said has supported, rather than destroyed, my hon. Friend's case.
When the Government came to power, Britain had reached a dangerous point. More and more the ethos of "Why bother to work? Why bother to save? Why bother to act responsibly?" had taken hold. It is absolutely true that more and more people were saying, "Why do I bother? If I do not bother, I am not going to starve or be in any trouble, so why bother?" The welfare system was increasingly seen not as a safety net for the luckless, but as a bed for the shiftless. That is what the Government have addressed themselves to. Thank God the majority continue to work, to save and to act responsibly.

Mr. Heffer: Conservative Members are experts.

Dame Jill Knight: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton wishes to intervene instead of mumbling from a sedentary position, I am quite ready to give way to him.

Mr. Heffer: I said that the hon. Lady and her friends are experts in shiftlessness.

Dame Jill Knight: If the hon. Gentleman seeks merely to throw insults across the House, let him. People outside who read this debate will give what he has said due note. However, in my own defence, I say that I have never been shiftless. I have often been hard up, but I have never been shiftless.

Mr. Heffer: That is a matter of opinion.

Dame Jill Knight: Thank God the majority of people—(Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Dame Jill Knight: Well, the hon. Gentleman will mumble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and is rather a trial to us all.
I shall resume the main tenor of what I was saying. Thank God the majority of people in this country continue to work to save and to act responsibly. It is a very good thing they do, or else the country would be bankrupt. We simply cannot sustain ourselves as a nation — those nations that have tried to do so have failed —if more than half the people in this country are being supported in idleness by the other half working like mad. That will not do. The majority of people in this country—who do work, and act responsibly — have been increasingly angered and embittered at seeing their hard-earned money doled out to those who refuse to bear responsibility for themselves or their families.
I am very sorry indeed for all those who are looking for jobs but who cannot find them. That is a tragedy, whether one is young or old. To be unable to find work when one is genuinely seeking it is a terrible thing. However, I have no pity for those who quit their jobs without good reason. Let us be fair, it must be a good reason, but we have the back-up on that, as I have already described. I have no pity for those who refuse to seek a job or to train for a job, in the blithe certainty that society will pay all their bills. There is all the difference in the world between those two groups—between the genuinely unemployed, and those who have become unemployed in the certainty that they will not suffer in that way.
There is widespread sympathy for the genuinely jobless. Not only have the Government done everything possible to help them — I hope that Opposition Members will join us as we rejoice in the falling figures for unemployment in Britain today — but the taxpayer is ready and willing to see his money used to ensure that there is no question of the unemployed not having enough to live on. There is real sympathy among taxpayers for genuinely unemployed people. I am sure that, even on a voluntary basis, people would give if they saw a man genuinely out of work, through no fault of his own, and suffering because of it. However, the generosity of the taxpayer turns to fury when he finds that he is being forced to subsidise the idle. As I see it, that is what the Government are taking steps to stop in this order.
If Opposition Members have any doubts about the taxpayers' bitterness on this issue, I urge them to seek some of the comments from their own constituents; many people who work hard and who pay taxes are actually worse off than those whom they are subsidising, and that is wrong.
We have a difficult situation in this country, in that there is sometimes a positive disincentive to save. I have


known cases where people have saved carefully all their lives, but at the end of their lives, they have been in a home and have found that they are the only people paying for their care in that home. That is an impossible dilemma, because if people have money it is right that they should pay, but it is hard to have denied oneself all one's life to ensure that one has enough money at the end, and then to find that one is subsidising people who have never bothered to act in the way in which one acted oneself.
Today we are dealing with people who perhaps have lost a place on an approved training scheme, either through misconduct or perhaps by leaving voluntarily without any good cause, and with people who refuse to apply for a job or to accept a job on an approved training scheme. How can Opposition Members support that and suggest that it is right for quite poor people to subsidise those who are able to work, or who could train, but will not do so? I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Government tonight.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not want to speak for long, but I should like to give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) my personal experience. My father joined the army when he was 13 years of age. He came out of the Army and for a short period became a policeman. He was then called up during the first world war. He was wounded four times and ended up as a regimental serjeant major. He was then trained to be a snob — that is, a shoe repairer or a cobbler. He never lost a day's work in his life. He worked very hard for his family, and ended up with 6d in the savings bank.
That is the story not just of one, but of millions of working people, and it is a fact. Indeed, that is why I became a Socialist—because I saw what my father and those around him had got from working hard all their lives. In the end, my father died of four cancers. I want that on the record, because that experience is not unique.
I want to talk about the penalties. Some of us, who also worked hard for our living in the shipyards and on the construction sites when we came out of the Army after the second world war, always resented even the six-week period. However, we tolerated it. We did not like that six-week period if, from time to time, we felt that we wanted to give up a job because of certain circumstances, perhaps because the foreman was a person that one could not stand. I remember one job where the foreman bricklayer was so bad that one lad lost his temper and broke the foreman's arms because he was so upset. That can happen.
Sometimes people cannot stand the individuals under whom they work. They may work, for example, in a machine shop where the fumes are very bad. They may have complained many times. It may not be a trade union-organised machine shop. So they leave and are immediately faced with six weeks' penalty, and they seek adjudication and so on. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost. The system has always been resented but it could be lived with. We did not like it but we could live with it.
Then the Government come along and change something that has been accepted for a very long time. In a brilliant speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was absolutely right to say that

from 1911 until the present time the period of six weeks has been an accepted fact. But there is a lot of difference between six weeks and six months. The Government are talking about taking people's livelihood totally away from them. These people cannot live on nothing.
It is working people who will suffer, who will starve collectively. The reason for the move is simple. It is a way of putting further pressure on working people to accept jobs which, in normal circumstances, they would not accept. That is the truth of it. When workers would like to say that they have had enough of a particular foreman and what he is doing, no longer will they protest; they will bow their heads even further. They will get a little further on to their knees and accept the treatment rather than place themselves and their families in such a situation.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston apparently does not even know what her own Government are doing by means of the present changes in benefits. Does she not know that, if people have built up a little nest egg of £6,000, after 1 April such people will find that nest egg taken into consideration, so that they lose some benefits that they might otherwise be given? Is that a choice?

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman really must not ascribe to me ignorance that I do not possess. He has already insulted me once—and he is perfectly free to do so as often as he likes. What he must understand, however, is that insults are no substitute for fair, decent and sensible argument.
He has told the House tonight about his father, and I have no doubt that every single word he spoke was true. I wonder what his father, who obviously worked hard all his life on the different jobs that he did, would have felt if, while not earning very much but working consistently to provide for his family, he found that out of the meagre amount that he did have he was supporting and subsidising those who would not work.

Mr. Heffer: If I have insulted the hon. Lady, I did not intend to and I apologise for any insult. I do not like insulting people, so I apologise if I have unwittingly insulted her.
I will tell the House what my father did, even though the debate is not about him. When he was a cobbler and people used to come to him — working people, unemployed people or people in very bad circumstances—he would tell them, particularly if it happened to be a working woman, that he would mend the shoes for their kids and that they could pay him when they were able to. On many occasions they never paid him because they never had the money to do it with. But that is exactly what he did.
The result was that on one occasion he could not meet the repayments on some new equipment that he had bought, so it was taken away and he had to go back to doing all the work by hand. I am talking about someone who understood his own class, his own people, and who had a love of ordinary people. I think, too, about my mother, who believed that Christianity meant something.
I want to explain to the hon. Lady that, to Opposition Members, these things matter. It is important to have compassion for other people, to think about other people, to understand that some people are not in the same lucky situation as we are in. People do not voluntarily look for unemployment but may sometimes not be in a position,


intellectually and otherwise, to get employment. Are we to say that they must suffer six months of no income whatever, or of a very limited amount?
This is one of the worst things that I can remember any Government doing. I sometimes wonder whether the whole of my life has not been wasted when I see the destruction, one by one, of the good things that we have achieved over the years, the important things that we have done for society as a whole, the things that we have done for working people because we are part of them and they are part of us.
This is the last straw for me. It puts the character of the Government in a nutshell. The Government want to return to the position where workers will accept any job. It is a form of slave labour that they want to introduce. It is unforgivable and almost unbelievable.
I hope that some Members on the Government Benches will have enough decency about them not to listen to the silly arguments about people wanting to be unemployed. Of course there has always been a very tiny majority of people who manage to operate the system. It is so unbelievably small that no one need worry about it. The overwhelming mass of people to be affected by this despicable move by the Government are ordinary working people who want a job but who, from time to time, will feel that they cannot accept certain conditions and who, if they make a stand and if they are non-union and so on, will find themselves suffering because of the action of the Government.
It is dreadful. It is disgraceful. I feel very upset about it, more upset about this than about most things of late. I have been getting increasingly upset at the Government. What they are doing is despicable. Although I do not believe that it will, I wish that the House would turn its back on the Government today and say that it will not tolerate what is being done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate and we have only a short time for it. I appeal to hon. Members to keep their speeches short; than no one will be disappointed.

Mr. David Evennett: I do not want to continue along the road followed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Many of us on the Government Benches also come from relatively humble origins and are proud of the fact. But we are living in 1988 and we are looking at what is to happen in future; we are not fighting the battles of 50 years ago. We are looking to represent the taxpayers, the honourable, honest working people who form the vast majority of the population. That is what we are addressing ourselves to this evening and we should not, as Opposition Members want us to, fight the battles of yesteryear, which have been won, but should go forward to the future.
All hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely sympathetic to those who are unemployed. We all accept that to be unemployed must be soul-destroying for the individual, for his state of mind and, of course, for his family, whether children or parents. We read of many cases, and, as hon. Members, we have experience of many cases in our own constituencies of people who have lost their jobs for economic and financial reasons or because

of advances in technology. People may have worked hard and long and often given years of service to their employer, when some unfortunate incident occurs and they lose their jobs. Such people deserve and receive our sympathy and our support, as hon. Members, and as taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is well known for his support of and sympathy for such people, and for many years and in many speeches he has stuck up for the under-privileged in our society.
The order, relates to another kind of unemployment problem, notably concerning those people who make themselves unemployed or who voluntarily choose unemployment. An important principle is involved; a principle that the Opposition Front Bench will not acknowledge. There is a fundamental difference between those people who voluntarily make themselves unemployed and those who, through no fault of their own, because of circumstances completely beyond their control, end up unemployed.
We heard from the hon. Member for Walton that in the past people have been responsible and have worked hard to look after their families. The vast majority of people today work hard, pay their taxes and look after their families, but we must consider the difference between the genuine unemployed and those who choose unemployment. I wonder how those taxpayers in the real world would view the comment of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that there should be no difference between the various types of people on the unemployment register. I do not believe that taxpayers would have much sympathy for people who voluntarily make themselves unemployed, when on the other side of the coin many people who are desperately striving for work cannot get it. They deserve our sympathy and support, not those who choose not to work.
I had the privilege and pleasure to serve on the Social Security Bill Committee in 1986 and the Employment Bill Committee in 1987. The Employment Bill Committee dealt with various aspects of the changes that have been alluded to this afternoon; the changes to benefits which will come into force in April and the other change which will come into law if the Employment Bill 1987 is passed in the other place—to disqualify people who have lost a place in an approved training scheme through misconduct, or who leave voluntarily without good cause. Today, more than ever before, people who leave school have more opportunities to be trained, to learn a skill and to get work experience.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Nonsense.

Mr. Evennett: The hon. Gentleman says, "Nonsense," but the facts tell a different story. Today, young people aged 16 to 18 have more opportunities than ever before for real training — for example, on the youth training scheme — but they do not want to take those opportunities and voluntarily reject the chance for a great future. Do they deserve much sympathy? The vast majority of people would think not. If we consider tougher penalties for people who leave jobs voluntarily—

Mr. Bob Clay: I recall that the hon. Gentleman was on the Social Security Bill Standing Committee of 1986 and the Employment Bill Standing Committee of 1987, because I was also on those Committees. Could the hon. Gentleman explain, having


had that experience, why in 1986 he and his colleagues thought that three months' disqualification was right, but a year later the period has doubled?

Mr. Evennett: We have discussed the matter in Committee and in the House. Things change and we reassess the position—that is what the Government are empowered to do. We must consider the position in the light of the facts and make a judgment, and the judgment is correct for today. I am sure that the majority of people would want to help the unemployed to get training and to get back into work, and to ensure that those people who, regrettably and tragically, are unable to get a job are looked after by the benefit system. That is what we are striving towards.
We must always consider seriously the point that there will be the odd case of hardship and distress, but we must remember that the money paid in benefits comes from taxation paid by people who have worked hard. The hon. Member for Walton told us about his father and how he had striven to look after his family and bring them up in the Christian tradition of hard work and looked after them with love and affection. That is the way most people behave.
We should encourage more people to train and get jobs, wherever possible, and not to throw away the opportunities that many other people would love to have. Therefore, I believe that the order is right and it will have my support in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: From 1911 until October 1986, the maximum period for disqualification from unemployment benefit was six weeks. As the House knows, that period was increased to 13 weeks. I ask the Minister: what has changed so drastically as to regard the period of disqualification of six or 13 weeks as being no longer a sufficient means of controlling unemployment? I make no excuse for repeating the question, and I hope that the Minister will respond firmly.
There may be only two logical reasons for increasing the disqualification period to six months: either the Government believe that many people are voluntarily leaving their jobs, confident in the knowledge that they can get unemployment benefit after six weeks, or it is yet another example of the cheap, petty, cost-cutting exercises that the Government have become so expert at in recent years, especially in recent months. There is simply no evidence that many people are leaving work without good reason. I find it difficult to imagine that even the Government believe that people prefer unemployment and low income to work and security.
The Government have admitted recently that the purpose of the disqualification period is no longer for insurance protection but is a penalty. If a penalty is to be effective, people must be aware of its existence, but the social security policy inspectorate has demonstrated that there is no evidence of that awareness. Most people are not even aware that there is a disqualification period for voluntary unemployment, let alone that it was increased recently. Many people would not be aware of the debate today, and I do not believe that our deliberations will have the slightest effect on someone who is determined to become unemployed.
The reality is that the order will cut public expenditure further, which is the attraction of the 26-week disqualification period to the Government. When the disqualification period was extended to 13 weeks, the Government calculated that £25 million to £30 million per year would be saved. That saving was made through reduced benefit payments and because those people who were unfortunate enough to be in that position were not credited with national insurance contributions during the disqualification period. The Bill may save a few million pounds, but it will cause a great deal of hardship and frustration to those who try to appeal, and no doubt a lot of understandable anger.
I believe that a member of the Minister's staff will come to Southport in May to inspect the DHSS office. That office is very well run. I believe that the visit will be made because of the rumour that the security in all social security offices will be strengthened.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Services(Mr. Michael Portillo): I will be visiting the office, not a member of my staff, and I look forward to it very much.

Mr. Fearn: I welcome that, and I hope that I can be there to speak to the same staff. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether he will be there to man the barricades against the terrific opposition to the measure and to the withdrawal of other benefits.
There is strong evidence that the disqualification process is not administered efficiently or fairly because many people who leave jobs because conditions are unacceptable or they are dismissed unfairly are being caught in the same net as people who voluntarily make themselves unemployed. I am grateful to the Low Pay Unit for its excellent investigation into the problem, as there can be little doubt that adjudication standards are not good enough at present. Corners are being cut and mistakes made.
Even worse, the Low Pay Unit has shown that many of these mistakes are not adequately corrected. The chief adjudication officer's report for 1985–86 found that one in every three decisions examined was considered deficient in one or more aspects. The social security policy inspectorate discovered in its survey in 1981 that DHSS operational instructions were not being carried out correctly. In many cases the initial decision to suspend benefit was not being followed by subsequent checks to discover whether the suspension was deserved. Ninety-three of the 205 cases in the inspectorate's sample—46 per cent. — were decided in the claimant's favour. Almost half of those who suffered benefit reduction did so unnecessarily, and many of them had undergone the full disqualification period already. Many of the wrongful decisions were never refunded. In 21 of the 93 cases, the decision was never rectified.
The large number of decisions that were subsequently overturned on appeal gives further cause for concern about the workings of the system. The chief adjudication officer's report for 1985–86 shows that, of a sample 1,000 appeals, 17 per cent. were revised on review, and the report commented that that figure
casts doubts on the soundness of first-tier adjudication.
Of the cases that proceeded to appeal tribunals, the report found that 29 per cent. were decided in the claimant's favour.
The position in 1987 seems to have been no better. Of the 1,002 appeals on disqualification heard in the first three months of 1987, 43 per cent. were found in the claimant's favour. The fact that the average time between registering the appeal and the hearing was 15 weeks causes even greater alarm. The facts are clear for the Minister to see. The system is working at breaking point. Staff are overworked and under considerable pressure, and terrible mistakes are being made which cause great hardship to, and mean terrible financial loss for, many people. Given the clear evidence of serious problems with the disqualification system, which is causing fairly widespread injustice, does the Minister still consider it sensible to extend the period of disqualification for six months? Enough unnecessary hardship is being inflicted on people whose benefit is affected for 13 weeks without compoundng the injustice by increasing the disqualification to six months.
Another major objection to the unemployment benefit disqualification system is that it works against flexibility in the labour market. I should have thought that the Government would welcome such flexibility; at the heart of their policies lies the belief in the "get-on-your-bike" mentality, but, as with so many of their slogans, they say one thing and do something completely different. The legislation prevents people from moving around and looking for better jobs and trying to improve their positions. An increase to six months in the disqualification period will only make things worse. People will not take risks to better themselves and their families if there is a danger of facing poverty. Instead, they will remain trapped in unsuitable jobs with poor conditions and I cannot support that. I urge the Government to reconsider this utterly disastrous proposal; I shall be voting against the order today.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I want to remind the House that April, when the order comes into force, will be the time of the Government's Budget, which is a Budget for the rich, who will benefit from it. So there will be a Budget for one group — the rich — and social security regulations that will screw another section of society harder and harder. The Social Security Act will also be coming into force. That, viewed alongside the loans, grants and the poll tax, makes it clear that a division in society is arising such as has not been seen since the 1920s and 1930s.
It is not only the Opposition who argue this. We have heard much about the views of the Church recently. Three days ago, the Bishop of Manchester, looking at the legislation before the House, said:
No society can survive without serious damage to its social fabric if self-interest is encouraged at the expense of other values.
But that is what the Government are doing. The Government are trying to fight unemployed people, whereas we are trying to fight unemployment, and they should realise the difference.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) spoke of how training and education were available, and how young people should take advantage of them. Ministers are sick of me telling them that on Teesside and in Cleveland those options are not available. I do not know how often I have to tell them that 500 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 this year cannot get

training places. After April, they will be hurt, just as people who are over 18 years old will be hurt, as a result of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) acknowledged that the majority of people want to work but referred to the small minority who became voluntarily unemployed. She has no idea of the extent of the problem on Teesside. Since 1979, 43,000 people have lost their jobs. That is not due to idleness or being jobshy. They are desperate to work. The Minister said that people do not give up their work lightly — on Teesside, we know that better than many. The words that he used in his speech gave us some idea of the attitude of Conservative Members. They talked of "sympathy" for "such people". If they met and talked to them and saw the real world that people live in, they would not be introducing such legislation.
The introduction of the 26-week period for people dismissed from the armed forces has not yet been discussed. How can the Minister justify the double jeopardy that those young men and women will be in? They will have been thrown out of the forces — for whatever reasons — and will then come back and be penalised yet again for six months. If Conservative Members spoke to people leaving the British forces under these circumstances — they have to return to their families and try to resettle without the costs of such return being met — they would realise that their families are being made to suffer unfairly. That is a double jeopardy of the worst order, and I want the Minister to respond to it.
The order will have a particular impact on certain groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke of some of his constituency cases, and I shall mention two of mine. I know of a case of a middle-aged man on a community programme who was dismissed for sexual harassment. His case is now on appeal and has been so for 36 weeks. Whether the man is rightly or wrongly accused, he and his family have suffered for 13 weeks. I dread to think how they would have survived — they would not have survived — a six-month period such as that proposed by the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston discussed some of the problems of the appeal system, and of the delays on the ground. I want the Under-Secretary to examine the delays in Cleveland, because the case I have mentioned of a 36-week delay in an appeal is not unique. If such cases are left to the whims of civil servants, they will use the maximum period allowed by the regulations, that is, 36 weeks.
I know of a 19-year old lad who was put on a scheme but was clearly unsuited to working on it. He was ostracised by his workmates and tried to sort out the problem with the boss. He was physically suffering and became ill as a result of being so unsuited to the scheme. In the end, he left. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, if the case of a lad of that sort is left to the whim of civil servants and the adjudication officer, he may well not be treated positively by the system.
We are often told by Conservative Members that we moan and look for dark clouds. But we are looking at the cases of individuals in our constituency who will suffer as a result of this sort of legislation. The Minister did not explain why the Government chose a period of 26 weeks. Why double it from thirteen weeks? That was the sort of logic offered by the Minister. There was no evidence of


consultation on such a period or of why it was considered suitable. Let us be straight about this matter—I am sure that the Minister wants to be straight. It will be 26 weeks, because it is the maximum that usually operates.
The Government would never get away with this proposal in the private sector. I shall consider what it is doing to national insurance. People pay into national insurance, but they are being denied an opportunity to claim benefit for a set period. A similar example of what the Government are doing would be if an insurance company said, "Because the trees have fallen this way during the storm, I am afraid that we are changing the rules and you can no longer claim." That is exactly what the Government are doing to benefit, and in the private sector they would never get away with it.
We must put the order in context. With this order, the rest of the social security legislation and the poll tax, the Government are shooting themselves in both feet at the same time. They are hitting one group in society with loans and poll tax repayments, and the Minister knows very well that repayments for those will be deducted from benefit. Yet now people are to be denied benefit. Conservative Members try to suggest that we are talking of one, two or half a dozen people. That is wrong; 20,000 people a month will suffer. As a result of the kind of dogma that we have heard during the debate, these cuts, along with the other legislation that the Government have introduced, will create an intolerable and unmanageable position.

Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I shall pose one or two questions, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with when he replies to the debate.
I was concerned about what the hon. Members for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said about the possible injusticies to people who have fallen foul of the regulations but who are not genuinely voluntarily unemployed. If there were many such cases, it would be a matter of concern to hon. Members who are interested in justice. It would be interesting if my hon. Friend the Minister could say how many appeals there are from people who are disqualified and the number that are successful. Clearly, if less than 1 per cent. of people appeal against disqualification, one would not expect there to be a relatively large number of appeals. However, I should like the Minister to say how many disqualifications ultimately result in a successful appeal.
Will the Minister state the average time that is taken before those appeals are heard? Will he consider putting a time limit on the period for the first listing of an appeal? An appellant or his advisers may ask for an adjournment; if they do, that is their fault. Will consideration be given to a time limit, during which the first listing of an appeal should be made?
What publicity is given to an appellant's right of appeal against disqualification? Is it brought home to every disqualified person that he has a right of appeal? Many people who fall foul of the regulations may not be particularly well educated, so that right should be clearly spelt out for them.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of the order. I was surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) thought that people who are voluntarily

unemployed should be treated the same as those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) present in the Chamber. His father worked extremely hard all his life. He never chose to be voluntarily unemployed and he showed a great deal of sympathy for those who fell on hard times when life was not as easy as it is for many of us now.
It is remarkable how many people are prepared to work for relatively low rates of pay. Hon. Members are relatively well paid. Not unnaturally, we choose to work because we are well rewarded for what we do. Many people work long hours throughout their lives for pay that is little higher than the level of supplementary benefit. It is an insult to them to suggest—as did the hon. Member for Livingston—that people who choose voluntarily to be unemployed should receive the same amount of benefit as those who are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I was relatively low paid until a few years ago, but I always gave people the benefit of the doubt. I never thought that the majority of my fellow citizens were workshy.

Mr. Favell: I am not suggesting that it is a majority, but it is a substantial minority. That substantial minority should be encouraged to work.

Mrs. Beckett: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument most carefully. If, as is rumoured, in the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes changes in national insurance contributions that give considerable benefit to those who have considerable amounts of unearned income, will the hon. Gentleman, along with us, vote against that?

Mr. Favell: I am not talking about what encouragement should be given to the higher paid. I am talking about the encouragement that should be given to those on low pay who do not refuse to go to work regardless of the fact that they are paid relatively little more than people on supplementary benefit.
The hon. Member for Livingston described the regulations as evil. That is one of the most extraordinary allegations that have been made against Conservative Members. It is remarkable to assert that it is evil to encourage people to go to work.
One of the most evil things that has occurred recently has been the encouragement of young people by Labour Members, who have said that they should expect work, come what may, when they leave school and that they should not go on training schemes.
Many Labour Members have encouraged youngsters who have no skill whatsoever to expect work. They have positively discouraged youngsters from going on training schemes. There is a lost generation of young people, aged 20, 21 or 22, who were encouraged by Labour Members not to go on training schemes because they should expect a job as of right.

Mr. Bill Michie: The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history.

Mr. Favell: I have heard Labour Members say that young people are entitled to a job, that training schemes are not real jobs and that training schemes should be discouraged. Labour Members have thrown cold water on Ministers' efforts to encourage young people to go into


training that will equip them for the rest of their lives. Those youngsters who were discouraged from going on training schemes have found themselves unskilled, at the age of 20, 21 and 22, and they have been condemned to the scrap heap because of the evil actions of Labour Members.

Mr. Henry McLeish (Fyfe, Central): I am pleased to stand with my colleagues and oppose the order. What has made the most impact on me so for is the crass ignorance of Conservative Members about what being voluntarily unemployed means. They throw in that concept without any regard to the different elements that go to make it up. One lasting commentary on the debate should be that they go away and think more deeply about the net that nearly 400,000 people are dragged into every year, as a consequence of which they suffer greatly.
No one doubts the wisdom of the insurance principle; we are all concerned that it must be protected at all costs. However, we must be concerned about the concept of voluntary unemployment. We are allowing a huge number of people to be subjected to a regime that the Government intensified to ensure that where possible their benefit can be stopped. It is as clear and simple as that, and the Government should acknowledge that fact.
The measure is significant in itself. As my hon. Friends have said, there are a number of sinister, shabby and seedy aspects to the order. The real significance of the order can only be seen when it is considered alongside the unprecedented assault on the unemployed that the Government have mounted over the past two or three years, and which they are accelerating as they work towards the hidden agenda and goals of the Cabinet to reduce the unemployment figures.
It is clear that there is no moral, social or economic justification for this measure. However, there are obvious and compelling political reasons for the Government bringing it before the House. The order represents a policy that is prejudiced, punitive and provocative, as many of my hon. Friends have said. We should be talking about this measure not as a social security measure but as a means of controlling the labour market.
For the first time since the war, two great Departments of State—the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment — are colluding. They are working together. That fact is not debated in the mass media, but we know that the agenda is there and for the first time we have direct evidence of the Government's social security policy strangling any credibility that their employment policy might have had.
Conservative Members say, "So we are dealing with 400,000 people; why worry? They are voluntarily unemployed and deserve no credit. They are scroungers." That mentality permeates the Government Benches. But, it should be put on record that not only will the disqualification be for the maximum period in most cases, but that it is automatic. Little regard is given to people leaving jobs. The decision to disqualify is automatic and in three quarters of cases the maximum disqualification period is imposed. It is no more and no less than that.
People will face disqualification from unemployment benefit and a 40 per cent. cut in the supplementary benefit allowance that goes with it. It is objectionable beyond belief. The Minister should address himself to the real concerns of Opposition Members rather than to the

crocodile tears of his hon. Friends. The Government's case is extremely weak; they have accepted that. Ministers have found great difficulty in explaining the changes.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would pause to consider the dilemma of the Conservatives, who have run out of speakers. The Whips have been scouring the highways and byways and have brought in the hon. Members from Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) with whom we should have some sympathy, as they are studying the order as we speak — [Interruption.] I do not propose to contribute to the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to take part in the debate, Mr. McLeish has the Floor.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I often come into the Chamber at this time of day to get the flavour of what is going on. I saw on the television screen that an important order was being discussed and I decided to come in. I am not aware of having sought to catch your eye. I have come in only to listen to the debate — as I wish other hon. Members would — and to hear the important speeches that are being made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is good to have the hon. Gentleman's company.

Mr. McLeish: I enjoyed that impromptu speech, but now I must get on, as many of my hon. Friends wish to participate.
The real issue is how this measure fits into the Government's increasingly sophisticated and ruthless strategy to cut the number of people on the unemployment register. The order has nothing to do with protecting the national insurance fund. It has more to do with state coercion — a phrase not often used in the House. Tragically, the Government are now pursuing a policy that can be described only as state coercion—and ironically, it is a Conservative Government for whom choice is supposed to reign. How laughable that is, when one considers the order.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. McLeish: No, I shall not give way.
Let me highlight the ways in which the Government have altered the unemployment count. We reckon that there have been 28 changes in the eligibility criteria, statistical adjustments, intensification of the benefits regime and the introduction of schemes and other measures such as restart. [Laughter.]
Conservative Members may laugh, but the tragedy for them is that the arrogance, ignorance and complacency of the Government have led them to let the cat out of the proverbial bag. Let them reflect on the press coverage of the Government's objective, which is to reduce unemployment to 2 million by the end of the year. They can achieve that without creating one single job. They need only pursue the present line — disqualifications and so on — and extend that to a broader canvas and, hey presto, they have a success story.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.
The Government's policy will create mass hardship among families and will not do a great deal for individuals who want to find work.
I have rushed through my remarks to give my hon. Friends an opportunity to speak, but finally, I shall identify the key issues in this debate. When the Rayner report was published in 1981, it was clear that the Government would have liked to accept the suggestion to abolish unemployment benefit and replace it with a means-tested measure of income support. I believe that the order represents just another step towards the eventual abolition of unemployment benefit and its replacement with a means test.
It is clear from the various reports that we read and discuss that there is now a pressing need for an independent inquiry into how the philosophy, policy, powers and procedures of the present Government are being used in a great assault on the unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) made the salient point that Opposition Members tackle unemployment, whereas Conservative Members tackle the unemployed. If the Government had any pride in their craft—[Interruption.]
It is OK for the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is the Government Whip, to sit there and laugh about 400,000 people languishing. If the Government had any pride in their craft, they would reflect on the 28 changes, which are objectionable and obscene and an insidious reflection of the fact that the Government have gone badly wrong. However, the Government have no remorse; I find that fact even more objectionable than their policies.
The unemployed will be caught not only by an intensification of the benefit regime but by the withdrawal of employment rights in workplaces all over the country. The withdrawal of employment rights is forcing more people to become voluntarily unemployed, and the prize for that is to be made the victim of the six months' disqualification.
I am a new Member. I have been here only eight months. However, in my limited time here this is the most odious measure that I have come across and if the Government continue to go over the top we shall relish the prospect of the next general election.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who unfortunately did not stay to hear much of the debate, told us most movingly how unfair it is for those on low incomes to have to subsidise unemployed people. I suggest to her and to her hon. Friends that the way to tackle that problem is to raise the tax threshold so that those on low incomes do not pay income tax. I suggest earnestly that she bring that simple remedy to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the appropriate time. However, in this debate, that argument is simply a red herring.
The order is part of a large package to make it harder to qualify for unemployment benefit. Various disqualifications have already been imposed — not only on those deemed voluntarily unemployed. For example, carers have become disqualified as a result of the ending of the crediting-in system. After a carer has spent a long period looking after an elderly relative and comes back to the

labour market, the crediting-in that entitled him or her to unemployment benefit is being ended. It has become harder and harder to qualify. I shall not list the ways in which it has become harder, although, if I am challenged, I shall be glad to do so. This is probably the most despicable part of the package, although it is hard to rank them. Perhaps the treatment of the carers is in the first rank of evil, and this is the second rank. That is the kind of discussion that we find ourselves led into, because every part of the package is unjustified and unjust.
I can give examples of cases in which someone might leave a job and be told haughtily, "You have no right to make yourself unemployed." For instance, someone might want to change his or her job, be promised a new job and give notice, but then find the job offer withdrawn. Employers, after all, can be extremely capricious. That person would then find himself out on a limb.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Lady has drawn attention to a case which I accept could happen. She should, however, be aware that if a valid offer of a job has been made and accepted, there is clear legal redress for fairly substantial compensation to be paid.

Mrs. Wise: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not live in the same world as most of us. I cannot advise my constituents to seek legal redress in such circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because they cannot afford it, that is why not. Moreover, in such cases employers can be very well advised legally, and can no doubt come forward with all sorts of plausible reasons. That person would still be out in the cold.
A young girl might feel that she was being sexually harassed. It might be said that she ought to complain; however, she might be afraid to do so. The person harassing her might be her boss, and she might fear that she would be accused of leading him on, as is commonplace: women are usually so accused if they try to make any accusations. It is not unnatural for a girl in that position—especially one who is young and inexperienced, and lacks confidence—to feel that the best thing to do is to leave the job, but that girl will be penalised with six months' loss of benefit.
Again, someone might be working for unduly long hours. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave an instance of an employer acting illegally and breaking the Factories Acts. Yet it was the unfortunate employee who was penalised. I did not observe the Minister get to his feet and say that the matter should have been taken up, and the employer should have been acted against. We know perfectly well that employers constantly impugn legislation of this kind—that they constantly break the Factories Acts and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and are very rarely brought to book. When they are brought to book, the penalty is miserable.
A constituent of mine, a young girl, is working as a waitress. She has to come home very late at night, and I know that her mother is very anxious about her. There is a tension in the family about her job, because the girl wants to work but the mother does not want her on the street late at night. Sooner or later, the girl may give up the job. Perhaps that would be best for her safety and welfare, but nevertheless she will have made herself voluntarily unemployed, and will be treated as a criminal.
I remember the case of a young girl, a shop assistant, who worked in a shop where there was a big heavy mat


in the doorwell. Suddenly, her employer decided to include shaking the mat in her duties. When the girl said no, she was sacked and was disallowed for industrial misconduct.
The girl in that case was wise enough to have joined a trade union. She was represented, and she won her case. Many girls in the same position, however, would not win their cases, and many will risk doing themselves an injury to save their jobs. The other difference is that that case occurred when unemployment was not as bad as it is now.
Shop assistants usually work in places that are either too hot or too cold. It might not be thought that in this day and age, when people can go to the moon and so forth, it would be so difficult to obtain comfortable conditions for shop assistants. But, as a long-time member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I know that that is a fact. Little shops are cold and draughty; big shops are hot and badly ventilated. People working in such conditions may decide that enough is enough, and that they cannot tolerate it any longer.
Until very recently, when such people left their jobs, they would have to swallow a six-week disqualification; at present, they must swallow a three-month disqualification. Such criminals are they, however, that the Conservative party will now deprive them of their rights for half a year. The objective, of course, is to ensure that they do not leave their jobs—that they do not get stroppy, and that they put up with their conditions, whether cold and draughty or hot and ill-ventilated, because they will be too afraid to raise their voices, and certainly too afraid to leave their jobs.
Supermarket checkout staff frequently suffer, hour after hour, a most uncomfortable twisting of the spine. Some supermarkets provide decent seating, which swivels, and makes the job easier, but some do not. Consequently the checkout worker has to swivel her spine. Is the worker to wait until she indubitably has a bad back which will last the rest of her life, or will she have the right to say, "Enough is enough."? Do people make themselves unemployed voluntarily if they leave their jobs because they think that if they keep their jobs they will be ill? It seems they will have to wait until they are actually ill or injured, and then it will possibly be conceded that they were justified in leaving.
It has been mentioned that there is an appeal system. I suppose that we are lucky that, so far, such a system still exists. Give them time: that will go as well, as it has with the social fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out that the average waiting time is already longer than the disqualification time, so that people are treated like criminals, fined heavily and have to serve their sentence while waiting for their appeal. I do not think much of that as a consolation for those who find that they win in the end, because they have had to endure it in the meantime.
I trust that the Minister will spare time to explain why, in families in which a woman is pregnant, there will nevertheless continue to be a deduction of 20 per cent. of supplementary benefit or income support. The Government are very kind; they realise that pregnant women may have special needs, so they do not dock 40 per cent. In doing that, they acknowledge by implication that docking the benefit of the main claimant affects the rest of the family, but they cannot bring themselves to concede that a pregnant woman should not be penalised at all in such circumstances. They know—or, if they do not, it is because they refuse to know—that it has already been

established by medical authorities that pregnant women on supplementary benefit cannot obtain adequate nourishment. That is a fact.
A pregnant woman on supplementary benefit, less 20 per cent., will obtain even more inadequate nourishment. It is that woman and her child who are punished. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says to justify that. If he does not choose to answer during his reply, I shall remind him.
I believe that the order is bad for everyone, especially for the young. However, in particular, it is bad for women, in common with so much of Conservative legislation.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that we must consider this legislation, this latest attack upon the unemployed, in the context of the Government's broader labour market policy. What they are seeking to do is to achieve increased profitability on the backs of the poor. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that this is an evil, brutal and vindictive order. Indeed, I do not believe that those words are strong enough.
The Government are attempting to find a scapegoat —every piece of legislation currently going through the House is about finding scapegoats. At the moment, the unemployed are to be the scapegoats. They are to be despised by the rest of society; that is the aim of the order. I have listened carefully to some of the language that has been used this afternoon. Words such as "shiftless", "workshy" or "scroungers" have been used deliberately. I have no doubt that those comics that support the Government will use such words in their banner headlines.
If the Government succeed in marginalising the unemployed — they are yet another group that the Government are seeking to marginalise—they hope that a desperate army will be formed, a reserve army of malleable people, willing to go to work for anything. This is all part and parcel of the Government's plan of State coercion about which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston spoke so well.
Let us consider the real world of the unemployed. Until recently, unlike Conservative Members, I was part of the labour market. For most of my life I have been employed in low-paid jobs. Some of my constituents are now suffering as a result of doing similar jobs to mine.
One young man came to my surgery a couple of weeks ago. He has a history of mental illness, but he desperately wants to work. He answered an advert for a job, came off sickness benefit and tried to do that job. However, he then found out that he was expected to do permanent night work—he had expected to do some night work, but not permanently. The rate of pay was £2 an hour. Incidentally, his job was in an old mill that was recently visited by the Prime Minister. We have been told about the new industrial revolution, but his rate of pay was £2, with no unsocial hours pay.
That young man eventually became ill again and the stress of that work and the low pay caused him to have another nervous breakdown. He lost his money and he had been without money for five weeks when he came to see me. He was desperate, and various charities had been helping him. We are now trying to get his employment


benefit back. However, he was deemed to have made himself unemployed and the inescapable fact is that he was forced to live without any recourse to income.
Another young man came to see me—

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: I shall happily give way when I have described this case.
A young man came to see me who was working for a security firm. He was also working for £2 an hour—that seems to be the going rate as a result of the wonderful entrepreneurial regeneration that we have witnessed in Halifax. The company for which that firm worked introduced a night shift and, by definition, his job went. The firm offered him a part-time job in another part of the country. He told me that he was deemed to have made himself voluntarily unemployed as a result of his changed circumstances.

Mr. Hind: I appreciate the hon. Lady's argument. There are some circumstances in which the argument can be made for benefits to be restored. However, the hon. Lady must bear in mind the fact that 3,427,000 people changed jobs between October 1986 and June 1987. That is a large number, and surely we should consider the problem carefully. There are many people who voluntarily leave jobs. The people to whom the hon. Lady has referred are a minority, and the appeal system deals with them.

Mrs. Mahon: I do not accept that the 420,000 people who have been disqualified made themselves voluntarily unemployed.
We must also consider the effects of other Government employment legislation. Anyone who tries to claim constructive dismissal cannot do so for two years. Constructive dismissal is something that employers often use, especially when they want to get rid of somebody or wish to reduce staff numbers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has already mentioned harassment. It is a fact of life that women simply leave their jobs if sexually harassed. They find it difficult, for many reasons, to complain. Indeed, society does not accept the scale of the sexual harassment problem. Obviously, the younger and more inexperienced the woman, the less likely she is to complain. Women leave their jobs and lose benefit. Racial harassment also occurs in the workplace.
People may take a job and find that they are so low-paid that they have lost their passport to all kinds of benefit; that is another reason why they may leave their jobs. People may have extremely low-paid employment and may incur travelling costs, but they will still lose the right to free school meals. The Minister would regard such cases as examples of misconduct, but I believe that the people affected are victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston has already said that many such people win their appeals against the loss of benefit, but there is an intervening time in which they have to live before they start to receive benefit again.
I wish to address some of my remarks to a group of people who have not been mentioned today — active trade unionists. I can speak about them from experience. In one of my last jobs, I was on a final warning and I know how easy it is for the management to set traps for the trade

unionist. I also recognise that, in the few years since I left the labour market, the problems have got considerably worse. Victimisation in the workplace is on the rampage. The Government have mounted the most malicious and malevolent attack upon active trade unionists, who represent a large proportion of those we have discussed today.
I already said that 420,000 people per year face disqualification on the grounds of voluntary unemployment. I absolutely refuse to accept that the majority of my fellow citizens are workshy—that is nonsense. My hon. Friends and myself have outlined viable reasons why people leave work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Mullin) asked the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) why he had changed his mind. In Committee last year he had said that a three-month disqualification was all right, but he now says that six months is the proper disqualification period. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford would not answer my hon. Friend, but I believe that the unemployment register has caused his change of mind. The Government want that register to reach the 2 million band and they are going to get rid of thousands of the unemployed as a result of the order. It is a fiddle—the 25th Government fiddle.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford spoke of the past, and the romantic notion of nobility of poverty. I would like to tell him some of my family's past and about some true poverty. My grandad was blacked as a miner and found it extremely difficult to get work in Yorkshire, even in the textile industry. When he did, the whole family had to work for very low wages indeed. There is nothing romantic about working for such low levels of pay. The Minister would take us back to slaving in the mills. Out of 11 children in that family, nine died below the age of 60 and four died under 50. That is what happens when people live in grinding poverty, working for slave wages, and have bread and dripping in the mornings. The Government would take us back to that.
What will the unemployed live on for six months if they receive nothing? What will happen to them? I ask the few Conservative Members who are present, how they think the unemployed will live. The Minister would take us back to those days. When I was in Standing Committee on the Social Security Bill, I appealed to the Minister, when we were told, as we have been told in the debate, that the Minister cares.
I made a special plea on behalf of the youngsters leaving care. I asked the Minister whether we could have an exemption for YTS youngsters who have been severely emotionally damaged or have had experiences that none of us would like to undergo. It is more difficult for them to settle in employment, and training schemes are particularly difficult for them. The Minister's answer, in the very quiet, bland and benign manner that he uses, was simply no. Those youngsters will still exist. They will disappear into homelessness and drug abuse, and it will be on the Government's conscience when they do.
The order will lead to more family breakdowns. My mother taught me that, during the 1920s and 1930s, when poverty came in, love went out. I grew up with that expression. There were breakdowns then and there will be massive breakdowns now. The Government will pay for this vindictive measure.
As a nation, we have never over-reacted — we are a very placid and calm nation — but I believe that this order is rubbing the noses of the poor into the mire, and the Government will pay for it.

Mr. Bill Michie: I shall speak for only a few minutes, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
The measure can be described as nothing more than a bad employers' charter. It is about the fear of those who are privileged to have a job. No matter how low-paid or how bad the conditions or the harassment, they will feel that they have to keep that job, or they will be penalised by the state. It is a charter for bad employers; it is almost a charter for slavery. Any time that one tries to escape from a job that is nothing more than slavery, one will be hounded by the state and fined by being put into poverty for six months with one's family. There is no argument about that.
We all know what employers are doing now and what they will do in future when there is the threat of no income whatsoever or very little income if employees do not toe the line. It happens every day in the working lives of many of those whom we represent.
I understand the enthusiasm of Conservative Members who believe that this is a good measure. They represent the very employers who will exploit the situation for profit and greed at the expense of the workers that they employ, in very bad conditions. We can all give chapter and verse of the number of cases that we meet in our surgeries.
In my constituency, a woman became pregnant and took maternity leave. When the baby arrived and maternity leave finished, she could not go back to her job because she could not afford a child minder as it was a very low-paid job. She used her initiative and applied for other jobs but unfortunately the DHSS said, "You are deemed to have made yourself voluntarily unemployed; therefore you get no benefit." So her debts went up.
Hon. Members may say that there is an appeal mechanism, but that young lady went through the appeal mechanism and the adjudication officer ruled in her favour. However, she was then asked, "Have you been paying your stamp?" The employer apparently had lost her national insurance number. We are now approaching 26 weeks with no money and no pay for a lady with a baby. She is getting more and more into debt. When this measure goes through, that will happen all the time.
It is a matter of discipline. There was another example of a poor sod—if I may use that word—who had lost his job and after three months he could get no work. One of his neighbours was building a garage and said to him, "Come on son, we do not want you wasting time looking for jobs when there are no jobs. Help me build this garage." He got £20 for three weeks' effort. The neighbour was asked by the DHSS, "Is that your son?" and he replied, "It is one of the neighbours who has nothing to do and I thought that he might like something practical to do to keep him off the streets." Immediately, that man was deemed to have been employed, and he lost benefit from then on. For the sake of £20, he lost benefit for the next few weeks. Under the new system, he will lose benefit for six months. He will be fined for six months for earning £20 helping a neighbour to build a garage.
Is that democracy? Is that fair? We are not talking about skivers; we are talking about people who want dignity, who want real jobs, but are not prepared to crawl

or to be hounded by the state or by bad employers. The Government are blackmailing those people into taking those jobs because they and their families will suffer. The Government hope that sooner or later people will accept slavery without dignity.
I hope and pray that the Government will push people so far that, although we are a conservative nation with a small "c", sooner or later people will rise up and take you on. Whether or not you have a police force and even if all the press are in your hands, the people will rise up and put you out of office by the ballot box—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Michie: I have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker. I was simply getting wound up. I shall wind up and wind down now.
I finish by saying that this is not an amusing issue for those who will be subjected to the order. It is not amusing to Opposition Members who are fighting every case. We are dealing only with the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of people will be subjected to a measure of which the KGB would have been proud. The Government are using exactly the same system, and the sooner they are overthrown the better.

Mr. Thomas Graham: There are few occasions when I have felt so emotional about a subject. The Minister has not thought it out. The Government think that they can simply throw someone on to the dole for 26 weeks.
At one time, a Conservative Member tried to live on the dole money, without an income. After five days, had he been living in Scotland, he would have died of malnutrition. He was cadging pints in the pub, and he could not survive on the dole money. He was a talented, able and clever young man, the heir to £100,000 a year, and he could not survive on the dole.
Now this suggestion has been plucked out of the air, to increase the period from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. That decision has no logic and no reason, except that someone voluntarily chucks in their job. That is life. I know many people on low pay who have dignity and who would like to work in a job for decent money and be able to bank something. Many people work six days a week and do not bank anything. They are desperate to look after their wains, but they have dignity. If a foreman or anyone pushed them around or tried to grind their noses into the ground, they would chuck in their jobs. They would chuck it then and there and the Government would ban them from benefit for 26 weeks. The Government would punish their families and drive such people to desperate acts.
I live in a constituency where 4,000 people are unemployed and many of them were put out of work or left their jobs because of their pride. If the Government think that such people will watch their children suffer, they have another think coming. The Government are living in cloud-cuckoo land if they think that they can force this measure on men and women who have worked to make this nation one of the richest in the world. They should be showing more compassion to the unemployed and low-paid.
I can give many reasons why people leave jobs and do so with dignity. Other hon. Members have spoken about how people are not prepared to grovel because of a bad


foreman, a personality difficulty or poor safety standards, with a lack of guards on machinery and people working in unsafe conditions. I have not seen many firms fined for failing to meet safety regulations.
I hope that this punitive measure will be defeated tonight. To live for 13 weeks without money is hard enough. As I have already said, a Conservative Member could not survive for five days on the dole, yet the Government are now asking people to survive for 26 weeks without it. People who have never committed a criminal act in their life will be driven to crime to seek aid and security for their families. The Government will make criminals of decent ordinary and good people.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Everyone who has been present throughout will agree that this has been an excellent debate and one in which strong feelings have been expressed, understandably so, on the Opposition Benches.
The proposals have a strange history. Several hon. Members have mentioned that a period of disqualification was introduced as long ago as 1911 and managed to survive for a substantial number of years until the Government's arrival in office without it being thought necessary to revise that period. It survived the commission set up to study the abuse of benefits under a Tory Government in 1973—at a time, incidentally, when the levels of disqualification on such terms were running at 600,000 a year, compared with the 300,000 or so at which they are now running. Nevertheless, that committee, which was set up specifically to discuss the abuse of benefits, saw no necessity for a change in the provisions.
In 1979, the Supplementary Benefits Commission expressed its anxiety at any suggestion that these provisions might be tightened, believing that that would be unnecessary. Indeed, the present Social Security Advisory Committee expressed similar reservations and its great concern and anxiety when, in 1986, the Government last doubled the period of disqualification.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that there would always be cases of hardship. Many hon. Members would accept that some of the cases quoted by Labour Members did represent cases of hardship. During the lifetime of the Conservative Government, the leniency that was once available for those in hardship has been steadily reduced and the conditions have been tightened. It was this Government who made the statutory deduction of 40 per cent. It was this Government who tightened the provisions whereby that amount could be reduced in cases of hardship and reduced those only to cases of serious illness or pregnancy, although even then, the deduction was 20 per cent.
Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) most ably pointed out, the range of criticisms that have been made, not from the Opposition Benches but by the chief adjudication officer and other independent studies, such as the social security inspectorate study of the means of judging these cases, show that not only is it a fact that so many cases are overturned on appeal and it is shown that wrong decisions have been made, but the history of the report of the social security inspectorate shows that often those incorrect decisions were never communicated to the people who suffered from them.

Money was never repaid. We had to drag the Government kicking and screaming through the courts to make them repay even the 9,000 or 10,000 current claimants illegally denied benefit under these provisions.
Who in those circumstances can have confidence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, that all those denied benefit whose cases were not overturned on appeal must have been correctly so denied? Let me quote a case given to us by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of somebody whose disqualification was, indeed, ruled to be correct and who therefore, on the hon. Lady's judgment, should have been denied benefit.
A 17-year old labourer in a bus depot in the north-east was expected to work eight-hour shifts seven days a week for £50 a week. He was dismissed because he tried to arrange to have one day off each week on alternate Saturdays and Sundays. His dimissal was ruled to be correct under the law. The hon. Lady bows her head. Clearly that is a disqualification with which she agrees. She will not find many Labour Members who agree with her, and I doubt whether she will find many in the community. If I am misinterpreting the hon. Lady, I shall gladly give way.

Dame Jill Knight: I said that an appeal procedure was available and ready for people who felt that they had been wrongly dismissed. It is fair to say that one cannot give all the facts of a case in a few sentences. I would not say whether it was right or wrong on the facts that I have heard so far.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has given her point of view. I merely rest on the observation that she said that she believed that those whose cases were not upheld on appeal must, by most criteria, have been rightly dismissed. All I am saying is that some of us on the Labour Benches would say that that is called into question by cases such as the one that I have just outlined.
I cannot recall the hon. Lady's exact words — if I misrepresent the tenor of her remarks, she will no doubt tell me, but I do not think that I do—but she referred to a direction in the operation of the welfare state of what she seemed to regard as increasing shiftlessness. She spoke of the way in which people were irresponsibly giving up job opportunities or jobs themselves and exploiting the provisions of the welfare state. In that context, the hon. Lady justified the changes that the Government made in 1986 and are seeking to make today. I do not agree with the hon. Lady, but I understand her case.
But what I find extraordinary, and what I entirely fail to understand, what neither the hon. Lady nor any other hon. Member, including any Minister, who has ever spoken on the matter has ever been able to make clear to me, is how the Government reached this conclusion. The initial doubling of the period to 13 weeks was not trailed in the Green Paper—the most fundamental review since Beveridge — that the Government published prior to their legislation. It did not even appear in the Government's White Paper. It did not appear in the Social Security Bill that was introduced in 1985 and debated in Committee for 160 hours. It did not even appear in a consultation paper in the way that the new clauses on industrial injuries and statutory maternity pay did —after the Bill had been guillotined, but still with enough thought and preparation for a consultation paper to be prepared.
Literally the week before the 13-week doubling was announced, we had been debating the very matter about which I have just reminded the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford—the Government's default and the number of people wrongly denied benefit, who had never been notified of their appeal and who had never had their lost benefit repaid to them.
We were debating that the very week before the 13-week doubling was announced and the Government, apparently, had not sufficiently made up their mind. This increasing trend which the hon. Lady had detected over decades struck them all of a heap suddenly between one week and the next and they thought it right to rush in this new clause.
The notes on clauses which were introduced to explain this proposal said nothing whatsoever, not a single word, about the Government's reasons for making it. They said what was being done, but nothing about why.
Nor, indeed, were we much wiser when we listened to the Minister of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). He spoke for 10 minutes introducing the precursor to this order, the measure that laid the groundwork for this order being able to be carried out without further primary legislation. In that 10 minutes, he said not a single word about the reasons for the proposal. All he spoke about was the mechanics of what was being done; he said nothing at all about the reasons.
Certainly he said nothing about the evidence, for reasons which became a little more clear when he was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). The Minister said—and this was about as far as he went in a quite tentative justification of the proposals that he was putting before us:
there was now a distinct, but I accept not a very rapid, rising trend.
That was his way of describing the fact that the number of disqualifications had fallen substantially over the previous few years but had now begun to rise very slightly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North asked the Minister why he thought that was happening; had he a breakdown of age brackets, had he a breakdown regionally; had he a breakdown of the earnings brackets in which the numbers that he had quoted fell? The right hon. Member for Braintree replied:
No, I do not have any breakdowns. I shall, of course, explore whether there is further information that I can make available to the hon. Gentleman, although I could not pretend that I should be able to do that tonight."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1986; c. 1871.]
That was on 30 April 1986. It is now 1 March 1988 and the Government still do not seem to have come up with much in the way of statistics to justify the change that they made then, let alone this further doubling that they are putting before us tonight.
The right hon. Member for Braintree, did say, finally, that there was a question mark over the way in which the period of disqualification had been operating, that it was a matter of judgment to extend—and he emphasised this most noticeably — not the automatic period of disqualification, but the maximum period over which that disqualification could be applied.
Of course, what we saw then and what we are seeing now is that, unfortunately, it is the maximum period that tends to be applied in the vast majority of cases —according to the survey which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston quoted and which the Government have

not yet published, but which I hope that they will choose to publish — apparently running now at 75 per cent. of the cases judged.
The Government had no real evidence to put before us in 1986 and now, tonight, they have very little; they have no real further evidence to pad out the total lack of grounds that they offered us then.
If the Government were concerned that perhaps 13 weeks might not be enough or might not work properly, if they were concerned that some variation might be needed of the period of disqualification, why did they not monitor what was happening? Why did they not seek independent evidence? Why did they not make a study? Why is it that the Minister is still — truthfully or otherwise—able to say to us that no real monitoring of the periods of disqualification and the reasons for disqualification is being carried out?
What justification could there be on the Government's own terms, for the doubling of the disqualification period when they have little, if any, judgment to offer of why that should take place? Whenever the figures that they offer are questioned, they rapidly shift their ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston has pointed out.
To call the Government's case flimsy would be over-complimentary. The Government's case is tranparent. The Government have no case; they have a wish, a decision, a judgment that they have decided to exercise. Grounds for making it they have none—other, possibly, than their wish to make public expenditure savings, and one other, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred and to which I shall return in a moment.
Turning from the thinness of the Government's case, unfortunately the background, the reality and the experience of those who will lose from these changes is all too real. There seems to me to be—my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), I think, used this phrase—a substantial amount of double jeopardy, some in the provisions themselves and some in the different provisions which the Government have put forward and of which this order will, unfortunately, be likely to be part after its passage tonight. Adjudication officers deny people one benefit in a variety of circumstances because, they say, people who have some degree of illness or sickness are fit for light work. The question whether there is light work is irrelevant; they are judged to be fit for light work and are denied benefit on those grounds.
One of the cases quoted by a west midlands citizens advice bureau is that of a pregnant woman who left her job in the fourth month because it involved heavy lifting and standing for long periods, which made her feel dizzy. She was refused both unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit because she was available only for part-time light work. That is double jeopardy.
In income support, housing benefit and board and lodging regulations, the Government tell us that the young are expected to live at home. The phrase which the Government used in the Green Paper and the words that they have used over and over again are:
it is clear that at the age of 18 the majority of claimants are not fully independent and that the great majority of claimants above the age of 25 are. The government have concluded that an appropriate dividing line is age 25.


The Government have argued that, justified it and stated it over and over again since 1985, although it is a view that we have questioned. But that is the Government's view, so they tell us.
However, when we turn to the order, we discover that young persons who move from their jobs, because their parents have moved and their family home has been transferred to a different part of the country, are liable to find themselves in jeopardy under these proposals regarding their claim for benefit. The Government's argument in the adjudication officer's guide is this:
Claimants aged over 18 who leave jobs because their parents are moving will, in general, only avoid disqualification if they, or their parents, can show that there is strong reason why they should continue to live with them.
When it is the board and lodging regulations, housing benefit or income support, young people are expected to live with their family, but when it comes to these regulations they are expected to stay behind, not to live with their family any more, because then it suits the Government to save money at their expense in a different context.
The most obvious double jeopardy of all is that with regard to persons who may be offered a training place or a job which they fear may be unsuitable. By the use of this order, the Government, if the Employment Bill is passed, are intending to extend it to the offer of a suitable—by the Government's standards, which means undefined—job or training place in any circumstances. So people, young or otherwise, who are offered a job or a training place which they fear may be unsuitable or unsafe will, if they refuse to take up that offer, have these regulations applied to them, and lose benefit. But if, under that compulsion, they take that place, job or offer and their fears turn out to be justified and they wish to leave, they will again be caught by the provisions of these regulations and will be denied benefit because—again I quote the adjudication officer's guide—
if the conditions which prompt a claimant to leave his employment were known to him when he began the employment, and he accepted it in spite of them, he cannot turn the clock back and say that he has just cause for leaving simply because the employment was unsuitable in the first place.
Many of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate have made the point, and made it ably, that the Government are catching people both ways round; that it is, in effect, a new and refined form of slavery at work, because they will force people into unsuitable jobs. Indeed, the order can be used on the one hand to force people into such training places or jobs and on the other to catch them if they dare to leave, their worst fears having been realised.
The Minister said in opening the debate that these proposals had one clear purpose—to discourage people from remaining voluntarily without work. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had that discussion too in 1985. My hon. Friends raised over and over again with his predecessor the right hon. Member for Braintree the point that, if the Government were really worried about people against whom misconduct could be proved and against whom there could be a case that they had no just cause for leaving their place of work, they should wait until misconduct had been established and justified and then say that if there were to be disqualification from benefit it should apply from that date.
In resisting it, the then Minister of State told the Committee that he was not prepared to say that the disqualifications could apply only from the point at which misconduct had been proven, because by that time the person might be back in work. In other words, it did not have anything to do with discouraging someone from wilfully staying without work; it was specifically to penalise a person for daring to leave work or for daring not to take a job, a training place or an offer of any kind which the Government might have put before him primarily to reduce the numbers on the unemployment register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central put his finger on the main point in drawing the attention of the House to the report by the Rayner scrutiny team "Payment of Benefits to Unemployed People", which said that although it had considered recommending the abolition of unemployment benefit, it had felt that
the idea of means testing every claimant might not be politically acceptable".
The Government have not got the guts to do that, or to make the case head-on. They have not got the guts to say that they will not pay unemployment benefit when the people know well that there are not just hundreds of thousands but millions of their fellow citizens not in work, because there is no work. Even this Government have not got the guts to do that. Instead they steadily eat away at the benefits by abolishing earnings-related supplements, tightening the credit rules, making it more and more difficult for people to establish entitlement to unemployment benefit and making it easier to take benefit away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the progress in his lifetime and how he had seen it destroyed. I am reminded of a conversation which I had with a colleague who is well known to many in the House, Mr. Jack Jones, once the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He said, "My wife and I have discussed this often. We feel that we have spent our whole lives dragging a cart uphill and now someone has cut the rope." Many people will get hurt when that cart rattles down the hill. I hope that Conservative Members are among them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I may be briefer than I had intended; if I do not cover every point, I apologise to the House in advance.
It may be worth beginning on first principles and saying that the purpose of unemployment benefit is to insure claimants who normally derive their income from employment against short periods of unemployment which they cannot foresee. It follows, as in any insurance scheme, that a person cannot be covered for circumstances or conditions which he brings upon himself. In the case of unemployment insurance, that means leaving a job with no other job to go to or being dismissed from a job for misconduct.
But we are not discussing in the debate people who leave one job to go to another. They are free to do that if they are able to find another job. We are not discussing people who are sacked because they are made redundant or people who are sacked because they are not up to a job. None of those apply. We are talking about people who are


sacked for misconduct or who leave their job voluntarily. That is a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) put his finger.
That is why, since 1911, penalties have existed to discourage voluntary unemployment. Those penalties were explicitly restated in the Social Security Act 1975, passed by the Government formed by the Labour party. The reason they were restated was that they had been formulated very clearly in the Beveridge report, which said in paragraph 326:
Disqualifications, as at present, will apply to men refusing suitable employment, dismissed for misconduct or leaving their work voluntarily without just cause".
The reason Beveridge included that in his report was made clear in paragraph 130:
The correlative of the State's undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earnings, however long, is enforcement of the citizen's obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work, to co-operate in measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness, and to take all proper measures to be well. The higher the benefits provided out of a common fund for unmerited misfortune, the higher must be the citizen's sense of obligation not to draw upon that fund unnecessarily.
That, in similar language, was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight).
May I point out to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that there is nothing in the Beveridge explanation about de minimis or any of the other terms which he used to try to explain why a Labour Government had consistently applied the principle. The case advanced by Beveridge is the concept of enforcement of the citizen's obligation. No amount of wriggling by the hon. Gentleman will get him away from that point.
The objective in 1911, the objective in 1948, the objective in 1975 and the objective today are the same—to discourage voluntary unemployment. As I understand it, and as the hon. Member for Livingston stated clearly, the Opposition have no disagreement on the purpose or on the means, because they used the same means — disqualification from unemployment benefit and the downrating of supplementary benefit. They downrated supplementary benefit even at times when it was much lower in real terms than it is today. Apparently the only disagreement between the two sides is that we are interested in making the penalty effective and the Opposition are not interested in so doing.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) talked about the evidence from the numbers of disqualifications. In the year to October 1986, there were under 414,000 disqualifications, at a time when there were 5·35 million claims for benefit. In the year to October 1987, there were over 420,000 disqualifications; that is to say, the number went up at a time when the total number of claims went down to 4·9 million. So the proportion showed a considerable increase. The increase was from 7·7 per cent. to 8·6 per cent.
Since the hon. Member for Livingston raised different quarters, I will discuss those quarters with him. He wanted to discuss two quarters taken at random, one ending at 30 September 1986 when the number of disqualifications was 7·03 per cent. of claims. He wanted to compare that with the quarter ending 30 June 1987, when disqualifications were 8·83 per cent. of claims. Therefore, the increase was particularly marked in the period which he chose. The

increase from 7·03 per cent. to 8·83 per cent. was an increase of 26 per cent., as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening remarks.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I stress to the Under-Secretary that I did not choose those nine months at random? The Minister of State chose those nine months in his press statement when he said that in those nine months the number of claims from people leaving work had increased. The Under-Secretary will admit that that statement was wholly untrue and that the figures provided to the House clearly show that the numbers fell. The only reason the proportion went up was that the numbers of those made redundant fell even faster over the same period. Is he suggesting that if the numbers of those made redundant halve in the next year, and the proportion increases, he will come back and double the penalty once more?

Mr. Portillo: I continue to maintain that the proportion is a significant figure. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not disputed the fact that the quarters which he has chosen to quote, both in this morning's Guardian and in the debate, actually strengthen our case. That is the point that I make to him.
Many questions have been raised about the quality of adjudications and the number of appeals. Let me put it in context for my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). In 1986, there were 5·3 million claims arising from unemployment. Of those, 720,000 were referred to adjudication officers and about 40 per cent. of them were allowed at that stage. Then 6,428 were appealed on the grounds that the voluntary unemployment deduction should not have been made. Of those, 2,548 were decided in the claimants' favour.
Out of 5 million claims. 2,500 were decided in the claimants' favour and voluntary unemployment deduction should not have been made. That is about one twentieth of one percentage point. If errors are made in adjudication, they are probably few, but, however few they are, I regret them. However, it is ludicrous to say that a policy is void because, out of five million claims, there may be some errors. On that basis, we should have no benefit system at all. I ask the Member for Livingston to accept that.
Several hon. Members have asked whether the maximum period is always imposed. The guidance given by the chief adjudication officer on 23 September 1986 is clear about that. He said:
It is wrong to say that the only two possible approaches to deciding the period of disqualification are by starting at the maximum and working down, or by starting at the minimum and working up.
It is not correct to say that the maximum period should be imposed unless the claimant proves that there are mitigating circumstances. … The correct approach is to regard each case as one in which a sensible discretion has to be exercised in such manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wanted to know what the effect on claimants would be. The effect will be the same as it was under the Labour Government, as the 40 per cent. rate of deduction on supplementary benefit remains unchanged. The difference is that, in real terms, supplementary benefit is now double what it was in 1948 and has been rising under this Government.

Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks.
The reduction in supplementary benefit amounts to 40 per cent. of the personal rate. Amounts for the family continue to be calculated on the benefit rates, so a single person aged over 25 would have his income support reduced by £13·35 but, for a couple with children, the deduction would be exactly the same, so that their full income support rate would be £79·10. Assuming a rent of £30, on average rates, the total receipts for that family, including housing benefit, would be £114·30. That is a deduction of some 10 per cent. in total support and ignores free school meals and agency benefits which continue unaffected. If the 20 per cent. deduction applies, the total amount of downrating is about 5 per cent.

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston asked him how he came to give an answer on 18 February, suggesting that information was not being collected on the length of disqualifications, when, apparently, it was being collected. His answer appears to have been misleading. Will he tell us how that situation arose?

Mr. Portillo: I have no hard and fast information on the length of disqualifications. I have only a sample of about 500 which may give a reasonable indication. I should not have dreamt of giving that information to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), as though it were scientific evidence of what was occurring.
The debate has been characterised by muddle and embarrassment on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Livingston has had to engage in considerable sophistry. He has argued that the 40 per cent. reduction could cause hunger—those were his words—but not, apparently, when the same deduction of 40 per cent. applied under the Labour Government. He said that six weeks was a de minimis and not a penalty. In that, he flatly contradicted Beveridge. He agreed that suspension of benefit was right, but he does not wish it to be effective in discouraging voluntary unemployment. We wish to be effective. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition and that is why I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 219.

Division No. 200]
[7.3 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bellingham, Henry
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Buck, Sir Antony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Budgen, Nicholas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Burns, Simon





Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Chris
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Harris, David
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Shersby, Michael


Page, Richard
Sims, Roger


Paice, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Patnick, Irvine
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Pawsey, James
Squire, Robin


Porter, David (Waveney)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Portillo, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Steen, Anthony


Price, Sir David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Raffan, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stokes, John


Redwood, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Renton, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Ayes


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. David Lightbown and


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


NOES


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashdown, Paddy
Cummings, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blunkett, David
Eadie, Alexander


Boateng, Paul
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Buchan, Norman
Fisher, Mark


Buckley, George J.
Flannery, Martin


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galbraith, Sam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clay, Bob
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clelland, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mildred


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Gould, Bryan





Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliott


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Nellist, Dave


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Brien, William


Henderson, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Holland, Stuart
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Geraint
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Illsley, Eric
Robertson, George


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


John, Brynmor
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Salmond, Alex


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfedder, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon David


Livsey, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCrea, Rev William
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Turner, Dennis


McFall, John
Vaz, Keith


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McKelvey, William
Wall, Pat


McLeish, Henry
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Robert
Walley, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Bob
Wareing, Robert N.


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wigley, Dafydd


Mallon, Seamus
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Tellers for the Noes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Allen Adams.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

Social Security (Armed Forces)

Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Benefit) (Members of the Forces) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 269), dated 18th February 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 268.

Division No. 201]
[7.18 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Paddy
Galbraith, Sam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barron, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Hardy, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, Stuart


Buckley, George J.
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunningham, Dr John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Darling, Alistair
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Douglas, Dick
Livsey, Richard


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alexander
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McCartney, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McCrea, Rev William


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum A.


Fearn, Ronald
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William


Flannery, Martin
McLeish, Henry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert





McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallon, Seamus
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steinberg, Gerry


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliott
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Murphy, Paul
Wall, Pat


Nellist, Dave
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William
Walley, Joan


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wigley, Dafydd


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Randall, Stuart
Wilson, Brian


Redmond, Martin
Winnick, David


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Richardson, Jo
Wray, Jimmy


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Frank Cook and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Allen Adams.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Allason, Rupert
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chope, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, John


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Cran, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Curry, David


Bright, Graham
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Day, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Devlin, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dickens, Geoffrey






Dorrell, Stephen
Hind, Kenneth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dover, Den
Holt, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Hordern, Sir Peter


Durant, Tony
Howard, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Evennett, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Farr, Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Favell, Tony
Irvine, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Irving, Charles


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Jack, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jackson, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Forth, Eric
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Franks, Cecil
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


French, Douglas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Gale, Roger
Kirkhope, Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knapman, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Knowles, Michael


Gow, Ian
Knox, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Lang, Ian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Latham, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Lawrence, Ivan


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lightbown, David


Grist, Ian
Lilley, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lord, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Hannam, John
McCrindle, Robert


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Haselhurst, Alan
Maclean, David


Hawkins, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hayward, Robert
Madel, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Major, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Malins, Humfrey


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Mans, Keith


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maples, John


Hill, James
Marland, Paul





Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Rowe, Andrew


Maude, Hon Francis
Ryder, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Miller, Hal
Scott, Nicholas


Mills, Iain
Shaw, David (Dover)


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridgo)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shersby, Michael


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sims, Roger


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nicholls, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stevens, Lewis


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Stokes, John


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raffan, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Riddick, Graham



Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 February],
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved: —(Mr. Tom King.]
Question again proposed.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will remember that in the adjourned debate, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) used a phrase in relation to me, when he said:
He has set up many UDR men." —[Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 490.]
Subsequently, some hon. Members sought a ruling from the Chair on that statement, and I wonder whether Mr. Speaker has had time to consider the matter further. I do not expect Mr. Speaker to master the Northern Ireland vernacular totally, but he may be able to get the flavour of what the statement meant. I ask whether you would make a ruling that the statement is, to say the least, unparliamentary language, and to set down such a ruling as a precedent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I cannot add to what Mr. Speaker said last Thursday towards the end of the debate. It is not possible to go back on points of order —they must be raised at the time—but I think I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are now resuming the debate, and I am sure that, with a little ingenuity, he will be able to raise whatever points he wishes to in the debate.

Mr. David Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the resumed debate, when you were not in the chair, points of order were made and Mr. Speaker promised that he would consider the questions raised by Opposition Members on the description used of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing I can add. I have refreshed my mind—I have the point in front of me. Of course, I have discussed the matter with Mr. Speaker, and nothing can be added. I suggest to the House that it would be better if we get on with the debate, when no doubt hon. Members will be able to pick up the threads of the debate last Thursday.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order will be brief, but it is of some importance. Could you advise the House on how we should proceed? As I understand it, Mr. Speaker can notify the Procedure Committee when a statement is made, as it was this afternoon on the potential takeover of British Leyland by British Aerospace, whether Ministers should notify the House of any financial interests of hon. Members, because the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is listed in the Register of Members' Interests as the honorary adviser to the chairman of British Aerospace plc.
Hon. Members do not and cannot look through the Register of Members' Interests at the time, but if hon.

Members have an interest in the subject of the statement, it would be to the advantage of the House if that were made clear in the statement. There is no Standing Order on that at the moment, but it would facilitate matters if you could draw it to the attention of the Procedure Committee that additional information is required, so that hon. Members can make a better judgment of the relationship of the Government with hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Chingford.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you are referring the matter to Mr. Speaker, would you ask him during his investigations to check on what Cabinet positions were held by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), at the time both of the appointment of Mr. Graham Day as the chairman of the Rover Group and of the privatisation of British Aerospace, because something smells fishy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted the points raised by both hon. Gentlemen, and they have almost answered their own points. If they feel that changes are required, it is for them, not the Chair, to draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate Committee, be it the Procedure Committee when it is set up or the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: With reference to your statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should pick up the threads of the debate from last week, I sincerely hope that we do not, because the Official Report shows that it turned into a semi-pantomime. When we are dealing with a very serious issue, the last thing we want to do is pick up those threads.
I do not wish to labour the point on the accusation made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), but I have made and will continue to make public any revelations of which I am aware as to the involvement of the security forces in illegal actions. I believe it would be a dereliction of my duty if I did not do so.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to two incidents which took place in my constituency. The first was the involvement of members of the UDR in the Miami Showband murders; the other was when two men were shot dead and it was subsequently verified by the police that an unmarked, unlogged UDR patrol with its numbers blacked out was in the area at the time. That was verified by the police very soon after the incident. In my constituency, four members of the UDR have been convicted of murder. It would be highly irresponsible of any public representative not to draw attention to such events when they happen.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to an incident in the first Assembly, when a Unionist refused to sit with me. I am in very good company. Of late, Unionists have refused to sit with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with other hon. Members. They have refused to sit on district councils and with Ministers, so the accusation should be put into context. I assure the hon. Member that I can do without the type of company of which he suggests I was seriously deprived.
This is a serious debate which takes place against a background of the events—or non-events, some may say — of the past two weeks. There is an air of unreality


about the debate, because the circumstances of the past four weeks have been incredible. It takes a tremendous leap of imagination to take seriously an order which has been a contributing factor to the events of the past week. The House should be aware of that unreality. I suggest that Kafka could not have written the script for the one debacle after another and the effect that that has had on morale, as well as creating resentment, frustration, anger and disillusionment in the communities of Northern Ireland.
It is not exaggerating to say that people are punch-drunk, and staggering from one body blow to another. In the past three weeks, people have seen their hopes for good law, proper justice and freedom from injustice being dashed in a way that has not been experienced before.
I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has to cope not just with his own mistakes but with the mistakes of others. I have great sympathy for him, because he is dealing with something he inherited and over which he had no control.
We are considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the Report of Viscount Colville. He stated in the foreword that it was not his brief
to query the philosophy behind the legislation.
That is a terrible mistake, because the philosophy behind the legislation should be examined carefully. From that philosophy have come two Bills, neither of which has contributed to peace or created stability or justice in Northern Ireland.
Many hon. Members regard the legislation as something new, something introduced in 1974 as a result of the horrific bombings in Birmingham—but it is not. The legislation is a refinement of the Special Powers Act which has existed in Northern Ireland since the day the stayte was formed until 1970, which was a refinement of the Coercion Act 1887. I could go back into history, but I will not do that. Over that period, this type of legislation has been based on false premises, on the spurious notion that if one bends the law one can enforce it—if one introduces repressive legislation, one will somehow bring about peace. That is not so. Such action will nurture, spawn and feed violence, as has so often happened in the north of Ireland.
It is also spurious to suggest that punitive action by the police, the Army or the courts, will create stability. It merely destroys and undermines it. Empiric evidence from the past 20 years, and from many years before that, going back into Irish history, shows that there is no solution down that road. There is no solution of a military type. Anyone who saw General Glover on "Panorama" last night will have been interested to hear someone who was the GOC in the North of Ireland saying what I am saying. That is why the philosophy behind the legislation is so important.
Once one begins to derogate and lower standards, corrosion starts at all levels, so we must examine all levels and say harsh things if they must be said, looking reality in the face if it is there. The highest standards in Government have been corroded. The Attorney-General's decision not to prosecute the policemen against whom there was evidence of perverting the course of justice was a profoundly damaging mistake, whose repercussions are there to be seen, in political terms, both on the ground in the North of Ireland and nationally and internationally.
What was a regional issue became a national issue when the Attorney-General rang the bell with the buzz words "public interest" and "national security".

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Would my hon. Friend accept that, if the RUC had been completely open about what happened and admitted that mistakes had been made, and had identified the persons that were involved at every level — including, perhaps, even Sir John Hermon—it might have been satisfactory then to have held merely a disciplinary inquiry as opposed to a prosecution? We are trying to find out the truth, to ensure that this never happens again. The calls for prosecutions only arise because of the cover-up.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There are two factors in this. First, six people who could have been apprehended with the use of minimum force, but who were not, and who were innocent before the law—I am old-fashioned enough to believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty—could have been brought before the law and charged, but were killed in an unlawful manner.
Secondly, the disastrous decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute has created a cover-up in the North of Ireland and has kept the lid on a can of worms. Those worms are squirming out around the edges and will continue to squirm until someone, somewhere down the line, has the courage to tell the truth about what happened.
I have suggested that the highest standards in Government have been corroded. What has happened to Ministers of the Government in the North of Ireland who have inherited the problem? Perhaps it is time that the Minister who was in charge of security at the time and who is now a Member of another place had the courage to go to the House of Lords to tell us what we have not been able to hear so far—the definitive position from the person who was responsible at that time for security in the North of Ireland.
The highest standards of policing and the direction and leadership of the RUC have also been corroded. People in the police service have broken the law. There is evidence that they tried to pervert the course of justice. They have been protected on the Floor of the House by the Government, and by the entire political establishment, in a way that I believe is counter-productive for the Government and the police service. Does it not seem incredible that Mr. Stalker, who was asked to investigate events in the North of Ireland, was suspended from duty for the most spurious of reasons, while the Chief Constable of the RUC, who RS under investigation by the Northern Ireland police authority, not only remains on duty but takes every opportunity of becoming a star of screen and stage. Is that not embarrassing for the people who have tried to protect him? Is it not bad for morale in his force and disastrous for people in the police service who wish to do their jobs as good coppers without this cloud hanging over their heads?
It is difficult to imagine the outcome of the inquiry by the police authority, when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister have stated that they have the utmost confidence in the Chief Constable of the RUC. I know that they have to say such things at such times, but surely a little dollop of honesty would be more effective. They should realise that, by saying such things, they will pre-empt the decision made by the Northern Ireland police authority.
The highest standards of those in charge of the Army have been corroded too. I refer to the circumstances of the release of Private Thain after serving less than three years for a murder. I have beaten a path to the door of the Minister of State in the past, asking for compassion for young people caught up in the tragic events with which we have lived for so long. I take no satisfaction from what I am about to say, but we must realise how that release was perceived in the North of Ireland.
Twenty-five Republican young offenders and nine Loyalist young offenders, all of whose offences were committed before they were of age, are still in prison, and some of them are entering their 14th and 15th years of imprisonment. That is to be measured against the decision on Private Thain, and it causes us to ask certain questions. For example, is any Irishman's life worth only two and a half years in gaol? I regret to put it that way, but that is what has been said and how the release was interpreted.
On what criteria was the decision based? The first criterion should be: has the person served a length of time commensurate with the crime he committed? Those two and a half years, as opposed to the 14 or 15 I have mentioned, should make the Minister of State reach not only for his brief but for his list of young offenders and resolve to do what we have asked him to do time and again —to show the sort of compassion which alone can start to introduce some humanity to the situation in the North of Ireland.
The second important criterion is that the words of the convicting judge be taken into consideration. His words in the Thain case were not encouraging. He said clearly that Private Thain was not telling the truth and that he was unco-operative and evasive. The judge said that he did not believe the man. Yet the Home Secretary's Department, and whoever is responsible in the Ministry of Defence, have allowed the highest standards to be corroded by this type of insensitive release, and by taking that young man back into the armed forces. I regret to say—I have a lot of compassion for those who are caught up in these matters — that it was contemptuous for the court, for someone in a position of authority in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Defence to make this decision in the way that it was made.
Once the high standards are corroded, and once there are low standards in the highest of places, one is prepared to do certain things. One creates the circumstances within which the type of incident that we saw at Aughnacloy happens and it is inevitable that such incidents will happen.
We should look these matters in the face; we should not try to avoid them. In the North of Ireland, 166 people — they were not members of paramilitary groups and they had not been involved in acts of violence — have been killed by members of the security forces. That is a startling statistic, but it is ignored. Given that those 166 cases produced two convictions, one of which was of Private Thain, people such as myself can be forgiven for believing that there is a blinkered approach not only to this legislation and its implementation but to the administration of justice in the North of Ireland.
What happened at Aughnacloy will happen again. It is inevitable that young men on the streets who are put in uniform and given guns, will see the Government's disregard for the highest standards of justice; they will see

the Attorney-General's disregard for the process of justice; they will see senior police officers being able to avoid the rigours of the law; they will see that the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, irrespective of what will happen, will protect their position. They will say to themselves, "If those people can do it, why should I try to abide by the highest standards?"
The lowest standards are permeating on the ground. They are reinforced by the legislation that we propose to renew tonight. We are making it inevitable that soldiers and policemen will take their lead from their superior officers and from the decisions made on the Floor of the House, and do so in the belief that another Irishman is dispensable. They will say, "If Thain can get off, so can I; if senior police officers can do what they did and not be made to answer before the law, I surely will too."
That is the type of attitude, climate and ethos that makes those incidents possible. They make the death of someone such as Aidan McAnespie inevitable. They stem from the example that has been given from the top. We are also guilty, because tonight we shall renew the circumstances within which that climate and ethos thrive.
I referred earlier to Lord Colville's position. I regret that he did not think it worth while to look at the philosophy of this legislation. If he had, and if he had carried it through to its logical conclusion, he would have been able to say that the empirical evidence of almost 20 years is that this legislation does not create peace, prevent terrorism or create stability. All it does is create the circumstances in which we go from battle to battle on the Floor of the House and in which the confidence in and integrity of the process of justice is eroded to the extent that Northern Ireland was discussed when the Foreign Secretary visited Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. That is the extent of the corrosion that has taken place.
We shall extend that corrosion tonight. We shall renew the power of seven-day detention, despite the fact that in the Brogan case, which was heard by the European Commission of Human Rights, it was found that seven-day detention breached the convention. The Commission's recommendation was for five days' detention at the maximum. We will disregard that advice. We shall again impose the corroding standards that are permeating down.
We shall ignore the fact that, since 1975, 41,367 people have been arrested under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 without any charges being brought. We shall ignore that fact when we go through the Lobbies tonight.
Those of us who work in the North of Ireland know that the powers given by the Prevention of Terrorism Act are being used as a trawl for information. It is an easy way to take someone out of their house for questioning. In my constituency recently, a lady who was six months pregnant was put into a helicopter, taken to Gough barracks in Armagh and kept there for a day and a half. That is the easy way to discover information about somebody else. If that is not sufficient, I can give the example of another lady from my constituency who in the past two weeks was subjected to the same treatment. That is what we shall be voting for when we renew this piece of legislation.
We shall be voting for this measure despite the complete absence of any uniform legal or statutory regulations on the use of lethal force. I should have thought that, with 166 people having being killed as a result of lethal force by the


security forces—people who had not been involved in any acts of violence—it was time that regulations were written into legislation and into law.
Yes, we have the judges' rules; yes, we have the code of conduct for the RUC; and, yes, we have the Army code book, but they are all secret: they are not statutory and they are not known to the public. That matter should be looked into very quickly, because I cannot see how any Government could turn their face against making that a statutory requirement. Nothing is laid down by the House in relation to it. There is a code of practice in England, Scotland and Wales, but it does not exist for a country in which 166 people have been killed.
We shall be voting for powers to stop, search, question and humiliate young people on the streets. I shall repeat the effect that that has on the community — I see it daily. Unfortunately, there seems to be no redress if one goes to the RUC or to the military. The reality of the matter is that we are giving young soldiers and young policemen the power to do just those things without reasonable suspicion. It is happening on a continuing basis. I have seen young people on the streets having to take off their coats, shoes and socks, knowing that they had been questioned half an hour previously.
I have a calling card that was left on selected cars in my constituency last night. It says:
Boys are back in town. 40 Commando Royal Marines.
That is not a squaddie prank. Squaddies do not waste their money getting cards printed. It was officially sanctioned, and that is the type of veiled threat that has been used by people to whom we are giving these excessive powers. That is happening daily. Therefore, can one be surprised when an incident happens such as that at Aughnacloy?

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the printing and distribution of those cards was approved by the military authorities in Northern Ireland? Will he clarify?

Mr. Mallon: I am not aware of what may come under the military authorities in the North of Ireland. However, it is logical to deduce that the cards were not printed by a young squaddie going out on duty. I am sure that a young squaddie would not waste his money on that, and in any case would not have the facilities to get such cards printed. That type of thing happens consistently. This is not the first time. I hope that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is correct and that he will take this opportunity to demand of those in authority that the matter is fully investigated and that if guilt is established —as I know it will be—proper action is taken.
Tonight, we will renew the powers of the Diplock courts about which there has been much controversy. I shall confine myself to two points about those courts. First, I shall repeat the words of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights set up by the Government to advise them:
The wider interests of the administration of justice would be better served if there was a system of trial which inspired greater public confidence than the present method … The introduction of three-judge courts is one of the amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act which could be made without reducing the effectiveness of the legislation but which nonetheless might lead to a wider acceptability".
The views of that public body, set up by the Government, have been ignored during the controversy.
The retention of the Diplock courts system tells us something about ourselves. 1t tells us that we are prepared to settle for something that represents a serious derogation from the norm and from the highest standards. The law is much too serious a matter to leave to the lawyers. The responsibility for this law rests with hon. Members. We may or may not answer the challenge and face up to our responsibilities in deciding whether to renew the legislation.
I again ask the House to have the courage and vision to start to look for a solution that is not a military or quasi-legal solution, because there is no such solution. Let us have the vision to create a proper system of law and justice with which everybody can identify and that everybody can support. Let us have the compassion to seek a solution rather than seeking retribution. It is only through justice that we can create peace, and peace is the only foundation on which a lasting solution can be based. We shall never go down that road—the only road by which we can succeed—until we start to re-examine the philosophy behind this legislation.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Early in his speech, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that he believed that someone is innocent until proved guilty. He then proceeded to pronounce 40 Royal Marine commandos guilty. Having had some rather undistinguished service in the Corps of Royal Marines, I resent that, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that there will be a proper inquiry. It seems equally possible that someone could have printed those cards with the purpose of discrediting this fine unit of the armed forces of the Crown.
The hon. Gentleman does not wish the emergency powers to be renewed. It is a defect of our Northern Ireland legislation that we cannot amend the Acts. The hon. Gentleman criticised some of the provisions and the way in which they are operated. It is a pity that he cannot table amendments for us to discuss. However, when the Republic of Ireland cannot dispense with the Offences Against the State Act, which is emergency legislation, it seems self-evident that there has to be emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. After all, the Irish Republic has not yet—I say "not yet"—felt the full fury of terrorist attack, while Northern Ireland has.
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, the debate has been overshadowed by the Stalker affair and by recent difficulties with Dublin. The Sun newspaper is better known for its insight into the female form than for its insight into international politics, but I agree with the leader writer in The Sun who said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is part of the problem. I also commend the letter of Senator Mary Robinson in today's edition of The Independent.
I had the pleasure to correspond with Senator Mary Robinson shortly after she had resigned from her party, with considable courage, because she considered that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was unfair to the Unionist majority. It is, indeed, a grievous and unequal treaty.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and I are at one in desiring to improve relations between the Governments and the peoples through a reciprocal treaty that admits not the interference of another Government in a province of the United Kingdom, but the discussion of the totality of


relationships between the two sovereign states. It is sometimes argued for the Anglo-Irish Agreement that it enables Ministers and other politicians to dispense with megaphone diplomacy. I believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has simply provided an amplifier for the megaphone.
We have a common travel area with the Irish Republic and indeed with all the British Isles and we ought to have a common security area, too. It is time that there was an end to petty objections from either side when a squiggly border is crossed or air space traversed in pursuit of the common enemy.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh mentioned Private Thain. Concern has been expressed about his release and return to his regiment. I agree with Father Denis Faul that the decision in this case is to be praised. Father Faul has been a stern and courageous opponent of all terrorism. On 27 March 1987, he said that it was a mortal sin to be an active member of the Provisional IRA. He also makes no secret of widespread Roman Catholic support for the Union, although not for Unionist parties. However, he has regularly attacked the security forces for alleged excesses and, like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, has no love for the powers that the House is being asked to renew.
Father Faul, in applauding the decision on Private Thain, returned to the case that he has frequently made — and that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and others have made — for the release on licence of young people imprisoned for terrorist offences who, having learnt a bitter lesson, wish only to start a new life free of the terrorist oppressor. I commend that view to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at whose pleasure many such young people are now detained.

Mr. Mallon: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. However, the Thain case is not the only case. It is a matter of record that someone known as Colonel Callan, among other things, who was subsequently executed in Angola, was sentenced in 1972, while a member of the British Army in Northern Ireland, to 10 years for armed robbery and released after 18 months. Would the hon. Gentleman address his mind to that?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I should be glad to address my mind to it, but I am afraid that I cannot provide any useful information now. I shall certainly have a look at the case.
As for "Stalker-Sampson", as they call it, my opinion, for what it is worth, is that there was never any question of criminal prosecution. The hon. Gentleman describes Sir John Hermon as a star of stage and screen. I did not wish to make any criticism of Mr. Stalker until I heard the hon. Gentleman say that, but I should have thought that the description might be better applied to Mr. Stalker. I did not think that it was very edifying to see him signing copies of his book in Dublin.
No less valuable than Mr. Stalker's book is Peter Taylor's book "Stalker: The Search for the Truth", published last year, well before the Attorney-General's decision. Basing himself on what the Labour Attorney-General Sir Hartley Shawcross—now Lord Shawcross—

said in 1951, Mr. Taylor envisaged that the Attorney-General might decide that the effects of trial in court on "public morale and order" would render prosecutions unwise in the public interest.
Bad policemen must be rooted out, but the morale of the police is of supreme importance. It is also vital to protect the lives of informants, and with them the lives of many others.
Mr. Taylor is the man who, when he produced a film for BBC's "Panorama", seemed confident that there was a conspiracy to shut Stalker up. Then he did more research, and concluded that there was no such plot. He confirmed that view in a letter to The Guardian on 2 February 1987, in which he wrote:
Had the authorities wished to kill off the Stalker enquiry, they would not have breathed fresh life into it by handing it over to Colin Sampson who carried on where Stalker had left off and reached almost identical conclusions. Nor would the Attorney-General have admitted in his statement to the House of Commons that there was evidence to warrant the prosecution of police officers.
To those in the House and outside who have been impressed by Mr. Stalker's literary activities, I commend the contribution of Peter Taylor, written not with hindsight but with prescience. What matters now, however, is to close as quickly as possible, with proper and searching investigation, a distressing chapter in the history of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Some of its present critics, Nationalist as well as Unionist, were glad to praise that gallant and indispensable force when its members showed themselves—despite attacks on themselves and their families—bravely impartial between orange and green. Much has changed, and changed for the better, since 1982.

Mr. David Alton: I strongly concur with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has just said about the need for the Minister of State to take a careful look at some of the people who are languishing in the Maze, McGilligan and the other prisons in Northern Ireland, and who may have been placed in those prisons when they were very young. I have been making representations directly to the Minister about the case of one Protestant paramilitary, Noel Hillen, and I am grateful to the Minister for the replies that he has sent. So far, however, those replies, while they have been carefully worded, have not given any hope to the prisoner. Although he has renounced violence, and is prepared to work and to put his efforts into reconciliation in the community, sadly he cannot be released to achieve that.
There is plenty of evidence that people who have been released from goal in Northern Ireland are prepared to work for peace. I saw one just two weeks ago in Derry, Liam McCloskey, who is working for reconciliation in that community. He was a member of the INLA and spent 55 days on hunger strike after Bobby Sands. He renounced violence, became a Christian, and is now committed to bringing about reconciliation and trying to work for peace through non-violence in that divided community. I think that there is a strong case for early prison sentence reviews and the Minister should listen to the views on it recorded by both sides of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if those men had been of age


when they were tried, they would have done their time and would now be out of prison? It seems hardly fair that someone who happened to be under age, no matter what his religion or conviction, is not even given a date for his release. That causes grave hardship both to him and to his parents.
Does the hon. Gentlman not think that the Northern Ireland Office, having been asked by those on both sides of the religious divide to look at the matter from a purely humanitarian point of view, should take cognisance of that fact?

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful comments. He has made a good point about those who are under age. Some of the prisoners, of course, will have been over age when the were committed to goal, but even so, some will be relatively young. People can change. Surely, for the future, we must wean people away from violence, and people on both sides of the community must put every effort into that.
We come to this debate the day after an illuminating "Panorama" programme on television in which General Sir James Glover, the former head of intelligence and commander of the British Army in Ulster, said:
In no way can or will the Provisional IRA ever be defeated militarily. The Army's role has been now for some time … to help create the conditions whereby a full democratic, peaceful, political solution can be achieved.
I am sure that he is right. The future must be bound up with justice, with politics and with reconciliation being created by decisions made in this place, and also by those in the Dail in Dublin.
I am also certain that the future must lie in closer cooperation. Although I agreed with what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said about the need for closer security co-operation, our objectives must go deeper than that: a recognition that both North and South of the border, and across the Irish sea, there will be much more that binds us together than common, collective security.
It is inevitable that the security issue will, however, be much in our minds at present. I hope that the Minister will say something about Sir John Hermon's announcement yesterday that SAM 7s— surface to air missiles—have reached the island of Ireland from sources in Libya. Clearly, it is a matter of major concern that missiles are available that could destroy British helicopters and change the whole security position in Northern Ireland. I think that the House is entitled to know what action is being taken collectively by the British and Irish Governments and the security services to ensure that everything possible is being done to prevent their use.
It is a staggering thought, but since its creation in 1921 there has not been a time when Northern Ireland has been without some form of internal legislation which would not be acceptable in the rest of the United Kingdom. The emergency laws under discussion tonight were first introduced in 1973. I do not believe that there will come a time when Northern Ireland will be without emergency powers until there is a clear appreciation of the link between justice and security, and an acceptance that the only gainers from petty arguments and ridiculous territorial disputes are the paramilitaries.
The columnist Hugo Young put it very well when he wrote recently:
Are these large, ongoing incursions into British liberties justified as indispensable to British security? I think I'm

entitled to the opinion that they are not, without being blackened as a procurer of murder or a friend of the vilest enemy.
I agree with that. Anyone who dares to state the mildest criticism about the use of emergency powers, or about the prevention of terrorism legislation, seems invariably to be labelled as being on the side of the paramilitaries. It is not a question of that. It is simply that many see that the only way in which people will be weaned away from violence is for the link between justice and security to be strongly asserted.
This debate is taking place against the backdrop of five serious events that have devastated British-Irish relations and jeopardised the future development of joint initiatives and closer relations: the Stalker-Sampson inquiry, the Birmingham Six decision, the making permanent of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, the killing of Aidan McAnespie, which led to the Irish Government establishing a separate inquiry, and the release of Private Ian Thain, already referred to in this debate, after serving just three years following his conviction for murder.
Those five events add up to a devastating litany of failure, insensitivity and ham-fistedness. Many of those criticisms are not directed at the existing Government Front Bench. However, there has been a great deal of insensitivity in the way in which events have been handled, although many of them are undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for Newry and Arrnagh (Mr. Mallon) has said, time-expired. No one should underestimate just how seriously those events have set back the cause of reconciliation and co-existence.
There are one or two matters that I wish to raise with the Minister arising out of those incidents. First let us consider the Stalker-Sampson inquiry. Last week, during the first part of this adjourned debate, the Secretary of State took exception to the expression, "shoot-to-kill policy". Outside this House, that phrase is used again and again.
Two weeks ago, I met Sir John Hermon and asked about the allegations concerning the shoot-to-kill policy. I specifically asked him about the hay shed outside Lurgan on Ballyneery Road where, in November 1982, some of the shootings took place. I asked Sir John—I would like to ask the Minister again tonight—who placed the listening devices in that shed? What was recorded during the incident? Who removed them, and who gave the orders for the tape to be subsequently destroyed? Therein lies the key to the truth and about whether or not there was a shoot-to-kill policy.
I am prepared to believe Sir John Hermon, but how can anyone know where the truth lies until we know who gave the orders to destroy the tape? If the fault lies with the security services, that should be out in the open. That is the only way in which Sir John Hermon's name can be cleared and the reputation of the RUC restored.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I understand—perhaps the Minister can confirm this— that such tapes are always destroyed, under standing orders to that effect.

Mr. Alton: I hope that the Minister will confirm that tonight. However, in such circumstances, given the sensitivities involved and the knowledge that there could be prosecutions, I am amazed that those tapes were destroyed. If that is the case, surely such Government policy should be reviewed.
Sir John Hermon has taken a lot of criticism throughout, but I believe that he brings skill and determination to the most difficult policing situation in Europe. He has endeavoured to strip the RUC of every last vestige of sectarianism. Sir John simply will not do — any more than John Stalker — as a convenient scapegoat. The blame, I believe, clearly lies with the security forces and the relationships that existed between those forces and the RUC five years ago. Indeed, one of the validations of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that I do not believe that what happened then could happen now, and I fully accept that what the Secretary of State told us last week was true.
Yet it will not do for Government Ministers to hide behind weasel words such as "the national interest." National interest amounts to many things — the relationship between ourselves and the Irish Government, our security interests on the border and the confidence that the minority community in Northern Ireland has in the RUC. If the minority do not feel any sense of confidence, how can they be expected to join the RUC?
I have pressed the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about this on many occasions. I want to see more people from the minority community joining and supporting the RUC. However, until the RUC is seen to be totally impartial in its policing policies and its name cleared in the aftermath of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry, it is unrealistic to expect the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to say to the minority part of the community that they should join the RUC now.
Arising out of the Stalker-Sampson affair, I believe that we need a Select Committee with investigative powers or a judicial inquiry, consisting perhaps of Privy Councillors. We smugly gloat when we hear about incidents such as Irangate in the United States, as though it could not happen here. Mistakes happen in any democracy, but our mechanisms for dealing with such mistakes are woefully inadequate. We need to improve our accountability and the mechanisms that deal with complaints to ensure that the truth comes out.
I met Sir John Hermon for the first time about five years ago. I asked him why it was not possible to attract more Roman Catholics into the RUC. He said that it was his objective to do so, but that he should make it clear that in Northern Ireland there are Catholics, Protestants and the RUC. He said that he would continue to do all that he could to strip away any sense of sectarianism from the RUC. The way in which the RUC dealt with the events in Portadown last year is evidence that the RUC is impartial. However, a shadow hangs over its reputation.
Following my discussions with Sir John, he admitted to me that the behaviour of his men was "unconscionable" in the aftermath of the events at Lurgan. There must be recognition that faults lie across a broad spectrum, and it would be wrong if all the blame were laid at Sir John's door. A Select Committee inquiry could establish where the blame should lie.
For the future, when RUC officers are killed in Northern Ireland, I believe that it would be appropriate —I have said this to the Irish Government and I hope that other hon. Members will press for this — that Gardai, in uniform, should attend such funerals. When Catholic members of the RUC have been killed I should like to see senior members of the Catholic clergy present.
That would make it clear that the RUC has the full support of those who have high clerical positions in Northern Ireland.
I believe it was wrong, for instance, in the case of the Liverpool bar murder, that there was no senior Catholic churchman present, and I have raised that matter with Cardinal Fiaich. I shall also keep on pressing that solidarity should be shown between the RUC and the Garda.
I believe that there should be a stronger Nationalist presence on the police authority. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) mentioned Father Faul, and I can think of no better person. He would be someone who would safeguard the nationalist interest and yet would be likely to be beyond the guns of the IRA.
During Prime Minister's Question Time today, I was disappointed that the Prime Minister was not prepared to accept the need to consider the idea of a joint security commission. I believe that we could consolidate the Anglo-Irish Agreement by considering how we could work closer together on a whole range of issues. A joint security commission would be a start.
The Diplock courts should be replaced, perhaps with courts initially sitting just outside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction. Eventually we could have mixed courts North and South of the border trying terrorist cases together and that would demonstrate our joint resolve and determina-tion to deal with terrorism. Another way of underpinning the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be the establishment of the parliamentary tier, which has been spoken of for so long, but has still not happened. That would be a good way of bringing politicians together from all parts of these islands, so that some of the old animosity, fear and hatred could be broken down.
It is difficult to realise that it is less than four months since Enniskillen when there was a genuine spirit—the spirit of Gordon Wilson —of forgiveness and reconcilia-tion. That spirit has been squandered by this series of mind-boggling blunders. The prize must surely be to push the paramilitaries on to the margins and to ensure that Ireland's future does not consist merely of worn-out slogans, abusive rhetoric and more talk of victors and vanquished.
Confidence and security are the sisters of democracy and justice—they are never the relations of revenge or political one-upmanship. Confidence and security must be our clear objectives and in turn they depend on how we are seen to administer justice.
My colleague, Dr. John Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, said to me earlier today:
The series of mishaps, misadventures and misfortunes in the administration of Northern Ireland and, the conduct of Anglo-Irish relations over the past few weeks has been causing concern about the Government's handling of the situation. It is now giving way to a sense of alarm.
British policy must consist of not the endless renewal of emergency provisions, but of a long-term political strategy clearly agreed and supported by Irish and British, Nationalists and Unionists alike.

Mr. James Kilfedder: May I first thank the Leader of the House publicly for arranging, in response to the vigorous demands made last Thursday, for the debate to continue today.
The order highlights the fact that the Province is in a less than equal position with the rest of the United Kingdom. The order cannot be amended or changed in any way by Parliament. It has to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. It reminds hon. Members, if they need reminding—sad to say, some of them do—that the cruel campaign of terrorism continues to crucify the people of Ulster regardless of their religion, because terrorism strikes at Protestants and at Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland, deliberately or by accident.
The most recent terrorist atrocity that received national and international attention was the massacre at Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. Of course, other terrorist killings, mutilations and destruction have occurred since then; they are all part of the pattern of the past 20 years.
Some months ago the Secretary of State issued a grave warning that the IRA intended to mount a fresh horrendous campaign of terrorism against the people of Northern Ireland. Despite the obscene killings, and the grave warning issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Ulster people, this is, as far as I am aware, the first debate on security in the Province since then.
However, the debate is limited to the terms of the order and is taking place only because the order has to be renewed and the Government have to table it. I am sure that people in Northern Ireland wonder about the extent of the Government's commitment to defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland. I am sure that they have come to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland Office does not wish to put its record of the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland under parliamentary scrutiny.
Certainly the security situation is no better than it was last year, the year before or indeed, since the Stormont Parliament was destroyed by the then Government at Westminster in an attempt to placate the opponents of a British Ulster. Of course I am surprised that this debate, which is important for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland, has been attended by so few hon. Members. The largest number of hon. Members present at any one time has amounted to about a dozen and a half. If proceedings in the Chamber were televised, the people of Northern Ireland would be shocked at the lack of interest in Northern Ireland and in the lives of the people of Ulster and the security forces in Northern Ireland.
Undoubtedly, the situation is grave because the campaign of terrorism has gone on for 20 years, and the Government should answer for that. In addition, the situation has changed because the Provisional IRA has acquired sophisticated weapons. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the possibility of SAM missiles being in possession of the IRA. The IRA has the new impact grenade referred to on Thursday during the first part of the debate. That grenade is able to penetrate 6 in. of steel. Therefore, the security forces are now vulnerable when travelling around in their vehicles, which, until the introduction of the impact grenade, gave them a reasonable degree of safety. The SAM missiles are a frightening change in the situation.
I wonder whether the Government can provide some information about the amount of arms that the IRA has brought from Libya. The GOC in Northern Ireland apparently announced on television last night that the

British Army cannot defeat the Provisional IRA. What does that do to the morale of the people of Ulster and the security forces in Northern Ireland?
Insufficient credit is given to ordinary people in Northern Ireland, who have shown remarkable restraint despite the vicious campaign that has taken the lives of so many people. They have faced the betrayal of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that was entered into behind their backs and without prior consultation.
The normality that exists in the Province is surprising. I only wish that more people would come to Northern Ireland and see for themselves the indomitable spirit of the people, share their humour and enjoy their hospitality. I wish that more hon. Members from all parts of the House would visit Northern Ireland—I know that some hon. Members have been there—and speak to the police, the soldiers, the people and the representatives of the different constitutional parties. They would then be in a better position to assess the situation.
Sadly, Northern Ireland is facing not only a battle with terrorists, whoever they may be, although the principal terrorist organisation is the Provisional IRA. Northern Ireland also has to face the hostility of the media. With a few honourable exceptions, the media are not fair in their presentation of the situation in Northern Ireland or of the Ulster majority which believes in honesty, justice and fair play, no matter what has been said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
The media adopt that hostile attitude to Northern Ireland partly because of the skill of the Provisional IRA, which has a superb, sophisticated propaganda machine, working all the time in Great Britain and abroad, particularly in the United States. That propaganda campaign is threefold. It aims to raise money to buy more arms for the IRA, to make other people and Governments bring influence to bear on the British Government, and to demoralise the British people and weaken the resolve of Parliament and Government.
Of course, as part of that campaign, whenever a terrorist is arrested it is alleged that he was beaten up; whenever a confession is made, it is alleged that it was made under pressure; and whenever a conviction is obtained, there are allegations that witnesses have lied or that the court was biased because it was British.
It is further argued that if all the measures introduced to restrain and defeat the Provisional IRA and other terrorists were abandoned, the IRA would not be provoked into committing murders and bombing. I do not believe that the IRA or any other terrorists are lily white. If the police, the Army and the UDR were to disappear overnight, the IRA and other terrorists would not become as the driven snow. Such arguments are naive in the extreme and demonstrate the success of the IRA progaganda battle.
The IRA wants to limit the activities of the security forces, to put shackles on them and make them easier to defeat, to kill and to mutilate. I cannot accept that possibility, because, as a democratic society, we must do everything possible to ensure that every power is given to the security forces so that they defeat the forces of evil.
In the debate on Thursday, the Prime Minister was attacked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for showing "truculence" in her statement of support for the security forces. I see nothing wrong in the strength of her observations about the security forces. In the last war, it would have been


regarded as a heroic statement. If she had made the same remarks at the Dispatch Box in the last war she would have been greeted in the same way that Winston Churchill was greeted for giving a lead, for inspiring the people and for helping the people along in a difficult situation. Yes, she has every right to back the security forces to the hilt.
I deeply regret that not every hon. Member gives the same unqualified support to the RUC, the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the young soldiers serving in the Regular Army. I may have been disappointed that the Prime Minister allowed herself to be talked into the Anglo-Eire Agreement, but I resent the attack on her patriotism and support for the security forces.
This is a sombre time for everyone in Northern Ireland. I hope that when hon. Members speak they will think carefully, because their words will be taken up and repeated in Northern Ireland and may provide the IRA with an excuse, if it needs one, for taking further action against members of the security forces.
The speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh depressed me. I was not surprised, but, none the less, I was depressed. At no time does he or his party call on the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland to give full and unequivocal support to the RUC, the UDR and the Regular Army. That attitude, let me emphasise, is not prompted by anything that has happened in the past for days, weeks or months. It is an attitude which has been maintained for decades. It is no use referring to what may have happened in Aughnacloy or anywhere else, because, unfortunately, the divide is there. Again, I shall welcome the day when constitutional politicians will be able to work together to provide and to help security in Northern Ireland and to protect everybody in the Province.
I understand that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wishes, as indeed every member of the SDLP does, to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, and to put it fully and squarely in the Irish Republic. That is his position, but let him make it clear that that is his position.

Mr. Mallon: It would be churlish indeed if I did not respond to the hon. Gentleman's points. We give our support to the police in impartially enforcing the law. That is a reasonable position for anyone to take. I should inform the hon. Gentleman that I do not give unequivocal support to anything or anybody. My support for anything, and my allegiance to anything, must be constrained by the fact that that to which I give support acts in the proper way.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can assure him without any doubt that my political ambition — my political aspiration — is to see the reunification in Northern Ireland by peaceful means and by agreement, not, as he wrongly suggests, contrary to the wishes of any section of the people in Ireland. That is an honourable political position to take. That is my position and I would expect the hon. Gentleman to respect its legitimacy and to do so now.

Mr. Kilfedder: Before the hon. Gentleman interrupted, I had already shown that I accepted his attitude on the existence of Northern Ireland. He wants to take it out of the United Kingdom. That is it, fairly and squarely.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the security forces, one cannot pick and choose. One either supports the security forces or does not support them. One does not back the police when they are striking the heads of Loyalists who are engaging in some demonstration but oppose them when they are doing that to the Nationalist community.
Everyone in the community should respect the security forces and the police who have a difficult job to do. We should all tell the people in the community that they should back the police, join them and the UDR and defeat the terrorists who are a threat to everybody in Northern Ireland. They are certainly a threat to the existence of the next generation.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the events in Northern Ireland — I hope that I quote him correctly—made the death of Mr. McAnespie inevitable. I do not believe that Mr. McAnespie's death was inevitable. What happened in Aughnacloy is to be deeply regretted. I hate to see the death of any man, woman or child anywhere in the world, and certainly in Northern Ireland. But the young soldier has said—

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall give way in a moment.
The young soldier has said that it was an accident, and public comment by anyone, certainly by politicians, should await the verdict of a properly constituted court of law, sitting in the United Kingdom where we take pride in the standards of the judiciary.
The consequences of a cruel campaign of obscene terrorism are inevitable in Northern Ireland. Without the vicious killings of the IRA, there would have been no death at Aughnacloy. It is ridiculous in the extreme for the hon. Gentleman to produce a card in the House this evening which, allegedly, was from 40 Commando Royal Marines, although I do not have a note of the words that he alleges are in the card. The hon. Gentleman believes that it comes from 40 Commando Royal Marines. He alleges not only that it comes from them, but that it had been sent with official approval. That is an appalling allegation to make against anyone. I know many hon. Members who have served in the Royal Marines. It is an honourable regiment. Anyone could have printed that card. The IRA could have printed it and sent it to the hon. Gentleman.
I receive many nasty and obscene letters. Some are signed by people declaring themselves to be strong Loyalist clergymen. The wording would not make one believe that such letters came from a clergyman. Therefore, I do not automatically believe that they have come from any clergyman — Protestant, Loyalist or anybody else. What the hon. Gentleman said is naive and dangerous because the IRA can now pick out a member of 40 Commando Royal Marines and kill him for his "sectarian" attitude, or political attitude to a representative of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. That is the sad situation that we see in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: I have been asked to bring my remarks to a close, so I shall not give way.
More than 250 members of the RUC have been murdered by terrorists. They would not have died but for the terrorist campaign. UDR members have been


murdered. Members of the Regular Army have been murdered. I remember two young brothers, about 17 years old, who were taken out of Belfast 15 or 18 years ago, made to kneel down and shot in the head by the IRA. I do not think that those two brothers, who came from England, should be forgotten. I do not think that we should forget anybody who has died in Northern Ireland. Their sacrifices must not be in vain. We must defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland, but I accept also that we must make political progress. We must never give up hope that we can make progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.20 pm. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, so I appeal for very brief contributions.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I shall certainly conform to your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. High-handedness on the part of the British has always been a standing threat to Anglo-Irish relations, and it is that high-handedness that I wish to address now, in what has become a wide-ranging debate.
At the time when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, one of the most important changes from the Government's point of view was that it seemed to promise a more equal relationship. As a result, British Ministers would become aware, through a process of consultation, of the repercussions that their words and actions might have on Irish public opinion. Much of this was due to the quality of the officials involved on both sides. That is why the recent serious breakdown in diplomacy is so disturbing and so puzzling.
There is no doubt who is responsible. There is a quite striking sympathy for Ireland's case, and in particular for Mr. Haughey, across a wide spectrum of British political and media opinion. I am excepting, of course, the gutter press.
London and Dublin have just passed through probably the worst passage in their relationship since the early 1970s. Yet, according to The Daily Telegraph yesterday week,
Mr. Haughey … did nothing to make matters worse". The Times, on a day in the previous week, took the same view, saying:
To his great credit, Mr. Haughey has gone to some lengths to avoid making the tensions worse.
The Taoiseach set out a position in the debate in Dail Eireann a fortnight ago which clearly reflected the belief that he and his Government hold the high moral ground. The London Government's performance has been a sorry accumulation of ineptitude, insensitivity and incomprehension in assessment of Irish reaction—matched, I regret to say, by that of a small number, happily fast diminishing, of Conservative Members.
There are two main questions. Why have the British behaved so badly? And how do we restore a relationship with Dublin that had become informed with common purpose and mutual trust? Let us look at the main issues—extradition arrangements and Mr. Stalker.
On the question of implementing the extradition arrangements, the London Government are wrong and have behaved badly. As The Daily Telegraph pointed out on 22 February:

It could make a start by meeting Dublin halfway on the provision of evidence to back up extradition warrants for terrorist suspects. Britain requires such evidence from other countries, so it is hardly surprising if the Republic expects it from us.
If there are practical difficulties, they should have been addressed within the Anglo-Irish Conference or on a bilateral basis between the two Attorneys-General.
On the question of the Stalker affair, in 1982, as The Times of yesterday week put it:
something went wrong—and it took 5½ years for any minister of the British Government to admit it publicly.
To suggest that RUC personnel engaged in an official or unofficial shoot-to-kill policy should merely be disciplined was to make a nonsense of the rule of law. If RUC men were not prosecuted, it would be difficult for a long time to believe that the law was being justly applied in Northern Ireland. The decision of Mr. McAnespie's family to request the exhumation of his body for further investigation can only reflect a growing disenchantment with the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
How deafening the silence of Sir John Hermon on the substance of Mr. Stalker's allegations has now become. Soon after the book was published, the RUC issued a terse statement denying that a shoot-to-kill policy had ever existed or that it had ever obstructed Mr. Stalker's inquiry into its affairs. At the time, journalists in Belfast were given to understand that there would be a detailed rebuttal of what the RUC believed were "gross" distortions and inaccuracies in Mr. Stalker's account of what had happened. To date, this has not been forthcoming. Instead, there have been vague leaks to the effect that nobody in the RUC trusted Mr. Stalker and that was why they did not talk to him.
Former Taoiseach Dr. Garret FitzGerald, one of the architects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, speaking in that Dail Eireann debate, said that it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that they were faced with the consequences of muddle and confusion within the British Government. He reminded us in the House of Commons of the assurances that his Government in Dublin received as late as the end of 1986 that there were would be prosecutions as a result of the Stalker report. Dr. FitzGerald said that the London Government now had a duty to do all in its power to minimise the damage done and to restore confidence.
It will not be easy to restore that confidence while tragedies like the shooting of the young Aughnacloy Catholic continue to occur, not to mention the reports of his harassment over a long period.
At least 160 civilians, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has reminded the House, have been killed with either lead or plastic bullets by the British Army, the RUC and the UDR in Northern Ireland in the past 19 years. In that time, only one serving soldier, Private Ian Thain, who has now been released after serving three and a half years of a life sentence — this needs to be impressed upon the House — and unbelievably is now back in the Army, was convicted of murder in the course of duty. I have to say to the Minister on the Front Bench, and it gives me no personal satisfaction to do so, that I cannot conceive of this even being considered by the Ministry of Defence in Her Majesty's Government a decade ago.
It also needs to be borne in mind that it has tended to be the poorest sections of the Catholic population whose members, young and old, including children, have borne the brunt of the British Army's attacks on civilians—


[Interruption.] Well, they are all there on record. There can be no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member who is familiar with the Northern Ireland scene—

Mr. Peter Robinson: What about IRA attacks as well?

Mr. Duffy: Of course, and they are to be equally deplored, if not more so.
But, in the face of such extreme provocation, let the House also not forget the gains. The Government have taken two years or more of the most intense Loyalist reaction. The RUC has stood firm on the streets. The Secretary of State has stood firm against the leaders of Unionism, who tried to break the agreement, which instead, finally and successfully, broke their veto. The Maryfield secretariat is in place and is working, with its system of monitoring and checking the work of the security forces on the ground.
The agreement holds. Security co-operation is not in question. What is at risk, unhappily, is the sense of trust and common purpose between the two Governments—the spirit in which the agreement was born and from which everything, especially our hopes, have flowed. Much influential opinion in Britain is on Ireland's side. What is important now is that Irish and British Ministers jointly effect a rescue of what remains by way of good faith and co-operation, and in that the onus is clearly on the House.
Although there was, as the Irish Deputy Prime Minister put it, every evidence of healing at the meeting that was held in Dublin last Wednesday with the Secretary of State, both will need to employ all their experience and skill before the trust and confidence essential to a sound relationship are restored. If the case for repairing the damage to Anglo-Irish relations had still to be made, it was done by the discovery of two substantial arms dumps in Ireland during the last week. The discoveries underline Britain's folly in risking a breakdown in co-operation.
Most of all, the Government must break out of their practice of seeing the agreement almost exclusively in security terms and ignoring both the spirit of the pact and the generosity underlying it on both sides, as well as the many imaginative possibilities it offers to both Governments to help create better understanding between these islands and on the island of Ireland.

9 pm

Mr. Ian Gow: The first part of the debate on the order last Thursday was marked by an unmerited attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is correct to say that my right hon. Friend takes a keen interest and a keen pride in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the British Army in Northern Ireland, and rightly so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is a former Minister for the Armed Forces. He knows, as I know, that that interest and that pride of the Prime Minister are a source of encouragement to those whose task it is to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty in Ulster.
In moving the approval of the order, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted to deal with
the wider issues and the present scene in Northern Ireland." —[Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 473.]

Like my right hon. Friend, I regret the need to ask the House to approve the order. Like him, I agree that in the present circumstances the renewal of the order is necessary. Like him, I wish that the circumstances were different.
There is in Northern Ireland today an atmosphere of great uncertainty and instability. Certainty and stability are the enemies of the terrorist. Uncertainty and instability are his friends. These evils have two manifestations at present—first, in our relations with the Government of the Irish Republic and, secondly, in the Province itself. It is to those two manifestations that I want to address my speech.
As to our relations with the Irish Republic, the preamble to the Anglo-Irish Agreement refers to the unique relationship between our two peoples and the close co-operation between our two countries, acting as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Community. I endorse those statements. They are an echo of the words of the communiquè issued after the Anglo-Irish summit four years previously. That communiquè, issued on 6 November 1981, referred to
the unique character of the relationship between the two countries.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement marked a dramatic change of policy. Ever since it was signed two and a quarter years ago, it has been interpreted differently in London and in Dublin. That is a grievous flaw in any agreement, and it is fatal when dealing with Ireland. On the day the agreement was signed, the Irish Minister for Justice claimed that the agreement meant that the Republic had been given a continuing and substantial role in the day-to-day running of Northern Ireland. It was a claim that was instantly rejected by the Secretary of State. From that basic difference of interpretation, with the Irish Government mindful of their parliamentary and domestic audience and the Secretary of State mindful of his, highly publicised differences between London and Dublin have flowed.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Republic of Ireland should feel that the British Government are able to dictate to the judiciary or to the Director of Public Prosecutions what progress or action they would like to see in any particular case? Does he agree that that is a horrifying feature of the events of the past few weeks?

Mr. Gow: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I shall deal with that point a little later.
Inevitably, disagreements have flowed from the day when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, and nothing, save the ending of the agreement in its present form, can put an end to continuing highly publicised differences.
Let me illustrate what I mean. London believes—in my opinion, rightly—that the extradition arrangements with the Republic, in respect of those suspected of terrorist offences, are less satisfactory than with any of the other 10 states of the Community, despite the Anglo-Irish Agreement and an especially close common interest in cleansing the islands of Ireland and of Great Britain of the evil of terrorism.
The Republic made representations to Her Majesty's Government, asking that there should be three judges and not one in the Diplock courts, despite the fact that we had already examined that proposal exhaustively and the fact that any person convicted by a Diplock court has the


automatic right to go to three judges in the Court of Appeal. Moreover, the Republic appeared to link the number of judges with the arrangements for extradition.
More recently, the Republic has given the impression that it should have been consulted before the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland decided that there should be no prosecutions following his study of the Stalker-Sampson report. As the director did not consult the British Government, it is strange to suggest that he should consult the Government of a foreign power, yet that was precisely what was suggested.
Then we were told that there was considerable disquiet among senior Ministers in Dublin, including the Minister of Justice, at the decision of our Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, which upheld unanimously the unanimous decision of the jury some years earlier.
Following the tragic shooting at Aughnacloy on 22 February, the Irish Government ordered their own inquiry, even though he who fired the shot and he who was so tragically killed were both in the United Kingdom and even though the Army and the police in the United Kingdom were both carrying out urgent and thorough inquiries. Even last Wednesday's communiquè, following the most recent meeting of the Inter-governmental Conference, resulted in embarrassing disagreement about interpretation.
Each of those episodes was predictable and predicted. They are a foretaste of what is to come. That is in no way surprising, because the agreement gave the Irish Government the right to put forward views and proposals about political, security and legal matters, including the administration of justice. Article 8 provides:
The Conference shall deal with issues of concern to both countries relating to the enforcement of the criminal law.
Those who fashioned the agreement did so in good faith. They genuinely believed that the agreement would lead to improved relations between Dublin and London. The reverse has been the case. Troubled relations between Dublin and London are bad for Ulster. However, another belief was also held in good faith by the aúthors of the agreement — that it would lead to peace, stability and reconciliation in the Province and hasten the day when there would be no need for such orders to come before the House.
I now turn to Northern Ireland itself. One advantage claimed for the agreement is that it has resulted and will result in closer cross-border co-operation between the security forces in both countries. That close co-operation is greatly to be desired. However, there is an unpleasant corollary to that argument. If the Republic had not been given the right to put forward views and proposals about the way in which Northern Ireland should be governed, its Government, army and Garda would not have given the same co-operation in what many people, including myself, believe to be an overriding duty of all civilised Governments, namely to do their utmost to protect all our people against terrorism.
Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to agree with that when he said in the House last Thursday, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who had asked about the agreement:
Perhaps he"—
that is, my hon. Friend—
could explain to me how we are likely to do better in border security if we do not co-operate closely with the Government

of the Irish Republic. … the closest co-operation with the Government of the Irish Republic is absolutely essential."—[Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 427.]
I agree with my right hon. Friend, but was he really telling the House that the agreement was necessary to gain the co-operation?
I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply, that there is the closest cross-border co-operation in the fight to defeat Basque terrorism between France and Spain. No Franco-Spanish agreement exists whereby France has the right to put forward views and proposals about how the Basque territory should be governed.
The agreement gave the Republic responsibility for representing Nationalists in their dealings with the British Government, over the heads of the three SDLP Members of this House. The agreement has alienated the majority, without reconciling the minority.
Article 4(b) states:
It is the declared policy of the United Kingdom Government that responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. The Irish Government support that policy.
Twenty-seven months, and more, have elapsed since the agreement was signed. My right hon. Friend knows that he is not one step — not even half a step — closer to achieving what he then said was his purpose. If a policy objective is unattainable, and since we are on earth and not in heaven, it is the duty of those engaged in politics to strive for that which is attainable.
I have heard no protest from the Irish Government about the way in which Irish citizens living in London, Liverpool or Glasgow are treated by Her Majesty's Government. The complaint relates to the way in which Irish citizens living in the Province or British citizens described in the agreement as members of "the minority community" are treated.
Very well, the remedy is at hand. I agree with the Irish Government that Nationalists in Northern Ireland are treated unfairly and differently from Nationalists in Wales, Scotland, London, Liverpool or Glasgow. It is possible to treat Nationalists in Northern Ireland and Unionists in Northern Ireland in the same way as we treat citizens of this kingdom living in Scotland, Wales or England.
There is no reason why we should deny to Northern Ireland alone a county council or a regional council. Why should only the 1·5 million of the Queen's subjects living in Northern Ireland be denied that right to elect a county or regional council—a right which is taken for granted in Great Britain? Why is it that those duties which fall upon district councils in England, in Scotland and in Wales are not conferred upon the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland? Why is it that the representatives of those who live in Northern Ireland are denied the right to amend proposed legislation which affects the Province?
We should legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as we legislate for the rest of the kingdom. Constitutional Nationalists in Northern Ireland deserve, and have the right, to be protected under a just law. Their right should be respected and acknowledged, just as the right of the Unionists is respected and acknowledged.
I said that certainty and stability were the enemies of terrorism. We would the better be able to restore certainty and stability in the Province if we were to say


unequivocally that, while honouring, acknowledging and respecting constitutional nationalism, we shall henceforth govern Northern Ireland in a way that more closely conforms to the way in which we govern the rest of the kingdom. If such a policy were to be followed, it would offer the best opportunity, the best hope, of discontinuing debates of this kind on emergency legislation.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the debate go on only to 9.20 pm, Mr. Speaker? How long have I got?

Mr. Speaker: A number of other hon. Gentlemen wish to speak. If the hon. Gentleman could bear that in mind, it would be very helpful. I understand that the Front Bench spokesman will seek to rise at half past 9.

Mr. Flannery: I will not take quite as long as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I shall reorganise slightly what I was going to say, because I want to refer to the hon. Gentleman's curious belief that the troubles in Ireland began with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He spent his entire speech labouring that one point.
It is, of course, absolute nonsense. The fact is that the enemy of terrorism is democracy — and there was no democracy for the minority community in Northern Ireland. The terrorists battened on the lack of democracy, especially on the part of the Democratic Unionist Members who did not understand, and still do not understand, and who want to go back to the old Stormont. [Interruption.] Despite the interruptions of Democratic Unionist Members, I want to make a contribution. I never intruded on anyone else's speech.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said something at the beginning which commended itself to me. He is a Catholic, and he was trying to help a paramilitary of the Protestants. There is a lesson here for all of us; the hon. Gentleman believes in justice and not in sectariansism. So do I. I have a very Catholic Irish name, but I am not a Catholic. I did not go to Ireland until I was nearly 50 and I have taken no lively part in the struggle. But some of us at some time must do what we can to make it clear that we are struggling on behalf of a particular grouping, not just for the interests of that grouping, but to obtain peace in Northern Ireland. I believe in a united Ireland — I always have — and I believe that the lack of democracy which drew a line round an in-built Protestant majority community caused all this trouble.
I should like to put a hypothesis. If a powerful imperialist Ireland had attacked England, occupied it and, when the time came to withdraw after hundreds of years of struggle, suddenly decided that there was a powerful Irish community in Lancashire and had drawn a line round it and, not content with that, wanted to make it even harder and had drawn another line to make sure that that community remained there, and had then added Lancashire onto that imperialist Ireland and said that it was part of Ireland, what do we think the English would be doing?
The emergency provisions, not the Anglo-Irish Agreement, have caused all the trouble. I abstained from supporting that agreement until I was sure that I felt good about what was happening, which I now do. I am sorry

that the Government have done so many things in the past few weeks which have provoked the struggle over that agreement.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987 were unnecessary. I feel sad that a Labour Government brought them in, because there was enough law to handle the existing position. It did not need those draconian measures, which have helped the terrorists. There is confusion about what is in the emergency provisions Act and what is in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, after what has happened to the six people from Birmingham.
Viscount Colville said in the first paragraph of his review:
New ideas, new information and a scrutiny of each provision would facilitate a more effective discussion.
Viscount Colville recommended no changes whatsoever. He said, in effect, "I believe that the solution to the problem is political." His terms of reference were
to report on the way the legislation has been applied over the previous year and to draw attention to any of the temporary provisions which safely might be allowed to lapse.
But he did not point to anything that should be allowed to lapse. In his report, which he said was hurried, he said:
the invitation for written submissions coincides with Christmas and the New Year. The predictable result on this occasion has been a meagre response to the invitation.
The events in Northern Ireland of recent days show that the position is as serious as it has ever been. It was getting better, but the Stalker-Sampson affair has soured relations with the Irish Republic and the refusal to prosecute certain leading members of the RUC has strengthened the terrorists, who ask whether that is British justice.
The aftermath of Enniskillen lingers on, and the recent killing of Mr. McAnespie has deepened the position. Private Thain's release was insensitive, piled on what had happened to the Birmingham six and the killing of Mr. McAnespie. It is natural that people in Ireland wonder whether there is any justice, when the British Government have been so insensitive. They should be ashamed of themselves for deepening the position, which was already bad. It is difficult to separate the two Acts.
The Baker report of 1986 set out all the details in a much larger report than that of Viscount Colville. The report said that it was restating section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 to exclude confessions. There is a difference of opinion about whether the Birmingham six were guilty. The judges—it was not a Diplock court, but three judges without a jury, on appeal —made it clear that they took not the slightest notice of the men having been beaten up in prison. There were pictures on record of the faces of the men who had been beaten up in gaol. How can we say that confessions of people who have been beaten can be allowed as evidence? The Baker report made that recommendation, but it has still not been accepted; nor are many other recommendations.
Many of us believe that the emergency provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are stopping justice and are causing terrorism. It is sad that not one of the hon. Members who was elected last year is present in the Chamber.
Every time this melancholy renewal comes up—it is to be indefinite, even though it is only for a year now— some of the Unionists never admit that they ever did anything wrong. They never say that what they did caused all this. Until they say something like that and admit to the


lack of democracy in Northern Ireland for the minority community— there is an in-built majority where there should not have been one — there is no hope for the united Ireland that I want or for the peace of Ireland and the British people, who are also suffering.
It is in everyone's interests that the whole of Britain and Northern and Southern Ireland should come together and cross the sectarian divide. I began by saying that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill had tried to do that. I want to do that and I want to hear the Unionists saying that they want to as well, and do not want to go back to the old, undemocratic Stormont. Is there any hope of that?

Rev. William McCrea: Tonight we have heard a verbal onslaught from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter what concession the Government give Republicans and their representatives, the latter will take it, kick the Government in the mouth—and then start to demand more. We listened to the hon. Member for Hillsborough blaming my colleagues and me for the lack of democracy in Northern Ireland. If he were intelligent enough, he would know that his facts are wrong. None of my colleagues were ever in government in Northern Ireland and to blame us for something for which we had no responsibility shows the hon. Gentleman's ignorance. We were the official Opposition—

Mr. Flannery: I did not say thè hon. Gentleman was in government.

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman lacks knowledge of the situation, but usually blows his mouth off about it nevertheless.
I have listened with interest to everything said tonight. I have yet to hear the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, or the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) or some other hon. Members condemn the brutal murder of two UDR men the other day. They mentioned McAnespie, but said not one word about the two members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who were blown to pieces. Of course, some hon. Members might find that funny and exciting, but we in Northern Ireland take their statements about wanting to cross the sectarian divide with a pinch of salt. We shall carefully study their remarks in the House tonight; nothing in them will give anyone who believes in democracy any hope.
What is expected: that the Unionists will surrender every right, as the majority, to remain part of the United Kingdom? That may please certain hon. Members, but the majority in Northern Ireland, no matter what the carrot held out before them—gold or otherwise—are members of the United Kingdom and desire to remain full members of it. I heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh talking about a lady being taken away to one of the barracks and obtaining information on terrorists.
I remind the House that I could take hon. Members to a home in the Crumlin road in Belfast from which a young UDR man was taken out by the Provisional IRA. Barbed wire was put on his arms, which were behind his back; his tongue was cut out of his mouth and a gun put into it, and the back of his throat was shot out by the IRA. Is that justice? Instead of condemning the Provisional IRA, we hear a few wee words whenever a challenge is made by

Unionist Members to SDLP Members. It may be thought that Sinn Fein is absent from the Chamber, but, having listened to the debate tonight, in scriptural terms, the voice may be the voice of the SDLP, but the hands that moved tonight were clearly those of Sinn Fein.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said — I took down his words—that he was
old-fashioned enough to believe that everyone is innocent before proven guilty.
Those were his words. He went on to enlighten the House and he produced a little card. He said that it had been produced by the 40 Commando Royal Marines. There is no evidence whatsoever of that. He believes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. He told the House— it will be in Hansard—that the boys of the marines had come back to his constituency and he told us of the threat to hi s constituency. It could be that the 40 Commando of the Royal Marines printed those cards, but the SDLP, Sinn Fein or the IRA could have printed them. The marines are innocent until proven guilty. However, that is not what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wants. He wants them to be found guilty whether they are guilty or not.
The House should condemn the disgraceful and despicable act of the cardinal in Northern Ireland who tried, condemned and sentenced a young British soldier in front of his congregation, to whip up the fervour of Republican nationalism. He stood before that congregation and said that that young soldier had committed murder. That was the statement of a Sinn Fein cardinal. We may be able to take that cardinal out of Crossmaglen, but we cannot take Crossmaglen out of that cardinal.
The House is being asked to accept that a young soldier who is doing his duty does not have a right to a fair trial. Opposition Members are not interested in a fair trial. They would put him on a rope if they could. That is the type of justice that they want for young British soldiers, young UDR men and young RUC members.
Hon. Members should learn that nothing will satisfy the IRA except the removal of everyone who is British from Northern Ireland. I should like to read on to the record a short letter from a pensioner in Northern Ireland. It says:
I was disgusted listening to Mr. Hume and Mr. Mallon, also their comrades in the South of Ireland about this 'shoot to kill'.
Shooting a young Christian girl, coming out of church. Was this not 'shoot to kill'? Going into a church and shooting the preacher, and members of the congregation gathered to 'praise the Lord'.
Was that not shoot to kill? It continues:
Shooting three young policemen sitting in their car.
Was that not shoot to kill?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has forgotten that one evening nine members of the RUC were blown to bits by an IRA bomb in Newry. In that case, there were no calls for an inquiry. It was not said that the incident was worthy of an inquiry. Innocent men, because of the plan of an IRA man, were ushered into eternity The letter continues:
Shooting a judge and his daughter coming out of Mass.
Was that not shoot to kill? It continues:
Luring three young soldiers to a fake party on the Antrim Road and shooting them in cold blood
through the back of the mouth. Was that not shoot to kill? It continues:
What about the innocent people of La Mon; the Abercorn; Oxford Street; Donegall Street and many others?
Was that not shoot to kill?


Hon. Members must face the suffering of innocent people in Northern Ireland. I condemn the killing of any innocent victim in the Province, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh had better tell the whole United Kingdom, the House and everyone listening that the IRA does not care whether a person is Protestant or Roman Catholic, religious or irreligious. If he stands in the way of the IRA, if he believes in being British or if he wants Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom and in a democracy, that is enough for the IRA to sign his death warrant. No judge or jury sits in those trials; a bunch of murderous scum sit in a back room and decide that a man's life must end.
We should speak of reality. When I listen to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh trying to portray policemen on the rampage shooting everyone in sight—160-odd innocent civilians killed — I am driven to ask him: "What about my own loved ones?" Were they responsible? A 16-year-old lad went out in the car with his 21-year-old sister who was engaged to be married. She wanted to show him the engagement ring on her finger. Was that enough for them to be blown up and put in a coffin—the two of them in one night?
Am I supposed to stand back and listen to all the tripe pumped out against the security forces? I have walked behind the coffins of those in the security forces. I challenge the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to tell the House how many policemen's coffins he has walked behind, to how many policemen's widows he has given succour, to how many UDR men's young lads or lasses he has offered his genuine sympathy or walked with to the grave.
The SDLP has not done that. Instead, in the past few days, the leader of the SDLP has sat down with the leader of the murderers, Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams. He sat down in collusion with him. That was their second meeting and they are now deciding on a third. Has that stopped the killing? Not at all.
That is not the purpose of the meetings. Their purpose is to extract every possible concession from the Government. I say to Ministers that it is about time that they felt for the young lads and for the young UDR men and policemen. I trust that they will show their sympathy and go along to talk to the families to find out how they feel about being robbed of their loved ones.
In my constituency, not one Minister from the Northern Ireland Office has ever walked through the door of the family of a member of the security forces brutally done to death or offered his sympathy in person to those who have suffered so tragically all these years. The Minister shakes his head. I invite him to tell the House how many homes he has visited to speak to widows and orphans of members of the security forces and when. When did he last go along to follow a coffin to the grave? Those are the realities in Northern Ireland.
Whether a person is Protestant or Roman Catholic, life is precious, and we should defend the people's right to live. However, there is a murderous group in Northern Ireland that does not care who one is and is intent on destroying democracy. It is intent on destroying this House. If the IRA could get here, it would do that. Indeed, the IRA tried

to destroy part of this building. When the IRA tries to destroy Her Majesty's Ministers, my life does not count for much.
I beg the House to renew the powers but also to do something else—to allow the security forces to destroy the terrorists. The Prime Minister told me that her policy was to eradicate terrorism. That is her statement and I agree with her. I feel passionately about it. I am asking the House when we shall get the murders stopped in Northern Ireland and when the people of Ulster will get around a table to talk about a future that will bring peace and stability to all our citizens.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The House recognises that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) feels very passionately about these issues. However, the House should also know that he entered into an agreement, after my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) had shortened his remarks, that he would do the same. If my arithmetic is correct, he spoke for 12 minutes. I accept that it was passion that carried him away, just as it was passion and the power of tongues that carried away his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on Thursday of last week.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear to the House last Thursday why I spoke. I spoke to obtain justice for those who represent the Northern Ireland people in the House, and to obtain time for them to speak. Let me put it on the record—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking on a point of order, and I do not think that he can put anything on the record during a point of order unless it is something that I can answer.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right for a representative of the Leader of the House to come to an hon. Member, as he did to me, promise that the debate would finish at 11.30 pm and then move that it finish at 10 pm? That promise was made to all Unionist Members, and that is why some of them do not rise in their places. They were promised that the debate would go on until 11.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing of that. All I know is that the House passed a motion that the debate should end at 10 pm.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The House is grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for obtaining an extension of the debate. A concession was made allowing the debate to be extended this week.
There has been a degree of unanimity among Opposition Members, particularly on two issues. The first is the usefulness of, and the need to continue, the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We urge the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ignore the words of despair of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and to seek to ensure that when renewal of the agreement comes about, agreement is reached betwen Her Majesty's Government and the Government in Dublin.
The second main area of concern, and I think unanimity, results from the early release of Private Thain,


the soldier found guilty of murder some years ago. It is felt that the compassion shown in that case should be extended to many of the other young people in Northern Ireland who have been caught up in the troubles over the past 20 years, have been convicted, and are now serving long sentences. If there is to be an even-handed approach, it is only fair and equitable — and, in my view, morally correct—that the Government should show them the same compassion.
All of us wish to see peace in the North of Ireland. We are all democrats in the House, despite the comments thrown backwards and forwards across the Chamber tonight. It is in none of our interests to see terrorists succeed in bringing about political change through the use of violence, which we all condemn as a political weapon. It is also right to recognise, however, that terrorism cannot be defeated by reciprocal violence alone; the conditions that breed and secure terrorism must also be removed.
We are driven to the conclusion that security policy alone will not defeat terrorism. If we are to defeat it, both communities in the North must feel secure in the knowledge that the practice of rule of law will be objective and even-handed.
In addition, political institutions must be developed which both communities perceive as fair, and not as recreating the old prejudices.
Economic activity must be encouraged, as the present high levels of unemployment do much to institutionalise economic discrimination against the minority community. We believe that political and economic policies, are as important as, if not more important than, security policy in the search for lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
I should like to quote the words of the Secretary of State, because the Official Opposition's views on security coincide with what he said in 1986:
Our strategy is to fight terrorism within the law. We want the most effective and vigorous action, but we believe that it must always be within the law. That is morally right. Any alternative will be bound ultimately to be counter-productive. It is the responsibility of the police, who lead in the fight against terrorism, to bring people to justice before the courts. Our aim and ambition is that the laws under which the courts will operate are fair and must comply with international standards of human and civil rights. Against the background of terrorism and the difficulties that that causes, the courts must diverge as little as possible from the ordinary law. It is vital to maintain the confidence of both communities in the institution of justice and we must do all that we can to ensure equal rights and remove grievances if they are fairly demonstrated, thus further to isolate the men of violence". —[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1082.]
That succinctly states the Opposition's views on the strategy towards violence.
We believe that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 have failed to meet those laudable objectives in certain important particulars. Those failings were enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the shadow Secretary of State, last Thursday, and for that reason we shall vote against the renewal order.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I am extremely sorry to learn from the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the Opposition will vote against this extremely important order tonight at a time of a serious security threat in the province.
What should be uppermost in the mind of every right hon. and hon. Member of this House is that, right now in Northern Ireland, we face a threat to security and to life which is as serious as any that has arisen in the past 20 years. Anyone who had any doubt about that from the information that is available in the public domain will have had those doubts dispelled by the BBC "Panorama" programme last night.
There is no question about the seriousness of the threat. It has been made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, by myself, by the Irish Minister for Justice and by the Chief Constable of the RUC. We face an extremely serious threat in the Province at the present time. That threat and its seriousness have been vividly and visibly demonstrated in recent weeks by the massive finds of weapons, ammunitions and explosives on both sides of the border. Against that background, I believe that it is deeply regrettable and reprehensible that the Official Opposition should be voting against the order tonight.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the tragic events that took place last week with the murder of two UDR soldiers. He asked for an investigation into the circumstances in which the bomb was placed behind a hoarding. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be writing to him about that matter.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) questioned the philosophy behind the emergency powers legislation. He referred to what was said in the "Panorama" programme last night by General Sir James Glover— that there was no military solution to the problems that we face in the Province. This Government and preceding Governments have said that many times. Indeed, it has been reflected in the policies followed by successive Governments, to try to improve the political climate in the Province. The whole process of breaking down discrimination in housing and in employment, trying to increase confidence in community relations, the security forces and the administration of justice, has been part and parcel of what we have been seeking to do.
Just as it is wrong to say that the problems of the Province can be resolved by purely military solutions, I must say absolutely clearly that anybody who thinks that political actions alone will solve the problems of the Province does not recognise the nature and the threat represented by the Provisional IRA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) acutely pointed out, even in the South, in the Republic, there is unique legislation that is not generally paralleled in other Western democracies, in recognition of the particular threat represented by the provisional IRA.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stanley: In view of the time, I would be grateful if the hon. Member would let me continue. He referred to the cards which apparently have been found on cars in his constituency.

Mr. Mallon: They were found on selected cars.

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman says, cards have been found on selected cars and they state:
Boys are back in town: 40 Commando Royal Marines
I share the concern expressed by other hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), should have said that, in his view, those cards had been


officially produced by military authority. I believe that there is absolutely no basis for saying that at present. However, I can tell him that the matter is under full investigation by the commanding officer of the unit concerned, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman might at least reserve judgment until that investigation is concluded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) expressed sympathy with those who had committed very serious offences very young. I must say to the House that the age at which an offence is committed is very much taken into account by the life sentence review board and by Ministers in considering release dates. Certainly I can assure the House of that.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House, and those hon. Members who were not present, to what my right hon. Friend said in answer to questions last week. I can assure hon. Members that that is a matter which we take very seriously.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill made a comment that I would very much like to support. He made a plea that senior members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy — both Protestants and Catholics — should be willing to appear and be seen to be supportive at funerals involving members of the security forces of denominations other than their own. I very much share that sentiment. I also endorse what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said about the importance of making certain that the Northern Ireland police authority included representatives from the minority community. I can assure him that there are some representatives already on that authority, and I fully endorse what he said about the importance of that.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred to the extradition issue, which has certainly not been problem-free. But I can tell him that meetings will take place shortly and I hope that the initial difficulties that have been encountered in giving practical effect to the legislation passed by the Irish Government will be sorted out.
I said that we face a serious position on the security front, and I want to underline that. The find of weapons and explosives by the Garda in January in Donegal was the largest ever find in the Republic. The RUC's arms find in February in a lorry just outside Belfast was one of the largest that it has ever made. The RUC's finds of explosives last year were two and a half times larger than the year before, and the Malahide find last week was one of the largest finds of commercial explosives ever made either in Northern Ireland or the Republic.
Those finds, which the House will recognise are greatly to the credit of the security forces on both sides of the border, included huge quantities of ammunition, potent explosives, automatic rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) asked about SAM 7 missiles. I can tell the House that we assume that SAM 7 missiles are in the island of Ireland, although, as the House knows, they have not yet been located.
There is no doubt that, if such weapons and explosives are brought into use by the terrorists, there will be a serious position and a potentially serious loss of life. It is imperative that searches continue with great intensity on

both sides of the border. I want to stress to the House that the legislation before us tonight includes vitally needed stop-and-search powers for the security forces. At a time when there is such an imperative need to locate the remainder of the supplies that have been brought in to the island of Ireland, it would be madness, and totally irresponsible, to contemplate a reduction of the powers of search at the present time.
I very much regret that doubts have been cast on the integrity of individual members of the RUC; indeed, in one or two cases, on the integrity of the force as a whole. The position is clear. As has been well acknowledged, and the DPP has concluded, there is evidence of the commission of offences relating to perverting the course of justice. My right hon. Friend has announced how the disciplinary aspects of that matter will be handled. Those disciplinary aspects should now be allowed to take their course. The integrity of the RUC as a whole should not be slurred, nor should the position of individual officers be called into question before any disciplinary proceedings have been concluded, and, indeed, before there has been any official announcement about the individuals concerned. In those circumstances, it is wrong to cast doubt on the integrity of the force as a whole.
In the last remaining moments, let me refer to the importance of the continuation order. I hope that, before we vote, the House fully understands that what is at stake in this continuation order is whether the security forces in Northern Ireland will retain or be deprived of powers that are critical to their ability to combat terrorism. The Opposition have said that they are committed to the fight against terrorism, and one takes what they say at face value. I can only say that to reduce the powers of the security forces at the same time would be an extraordinary way to fight terrorism.
If this continuation order is not passed, the security forces are going to lose their special powers of arrest, their powers of search and their power to stop and question. The Opposition are also going to make a very serious dent in our ability to deal with racketeering and other offences. I believe that it is essential, therefore, that the continuation order is passed, and I ask the House to endorse it.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 134.

Division No. 202]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amos, Alan
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Atkins, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butterfill, John


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boswell, Tim
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bottomley, Peter
Chapman, Sydney






Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, John
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
McCrea, Rev William


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Farr, Sir John
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Franks, Cecil
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Miller, Hal


Gale, Roger
Mills, Iain


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hawkins, Christopher
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Price, Sir David


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Redwood, John


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howard, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan





Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stokes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Thurnham, Peter



NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Holland, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hood, Jimmy


Battle, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Illsley, Eric


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ingram, Adam


Blunkett, David
Janner, Greville


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boyes, Roland
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bradley, Keith
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Leighton, Ron


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Buckley, George J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAllion, John


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McFall, John


Clay, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clelland, David
McLeish, Henry


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Marion, Mrs Alice


Corbett, Robin
Mallon, Seamus


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cousins, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cummings, John
Maxton, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Michael, Alun


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morgan, Rhodri


Dewar, Donald
Morley, Elliott


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Doran, Frank
Mullin, Chris


Duffy, A. E. P.
Murphy, Paul


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Nellist, Dave


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Fraser, John
Richardson, Jo


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


Galbraith, Sam
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rowlands, Ted


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Short, Clare


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harman, Ms Harriet
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Steinberg, Gerry


Heffer, Eric S.
Strang, Gavin


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Vaz, Keith






Wall, Pat
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes;


Winnick, David
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to intervene on behalf of my hon. Friends. As we were denied in the previous debate the time promised to us to discuss life-and-death issues, we are not prepared to present a charade to the House that everything is normal in Northern Ireland. The Minister can address other hon. Members, but we shall not take any part in that charade.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £76 million, included in the 1987–88 Spring Supplementary Estimates. That amount, when added to the £3,447 million previously approved by the House, brings the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to some £3,523 million for this financial year. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who are not participating in the debate to leave quietly.

Mr. Stanley: The second purpose of the order is to authorise Vote-on-Account expenditure of some £1,598 million for 1988–89. That amount is necessary to enable Government services to continue until the 1988–89 Main Estimates are debated later this year. Full details of all the expenditure sought in the order are set out in the "Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 1987–88" and the 1988–89 "Statement of Sums Required on Account", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
I also draw the House's attention to our first published commentary on Northern Ireland public expenditure plans covering the years 1988–89 to 1990–91, which was published on 24 February. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are interested in Northern Ireland affairs—I am sorry that some have now left the Chamber—will find that a useful source of detailed information on public expenditure in the Province.
The House will be aware that the Northern Ireland Office Estimates for law and order are not included in the order. Those Estimates are covered by separate United Kingdom Supply Estimates presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
As we are concerned with the entire range of voted public expenditure in Northern Ireland, other than law and order, I should like to highlight certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy which heavily influence the pattern of public expenditure provision. I am glad to say that unemployment in Northern Ireland continues to show a downward trend. The seasonally adjusted total for January was the eighth consecutive monthly fall.
The United Kingdom is now in its seventh successive year of steady growth and the Northern Ireland economy can he expected to benefit from growth at the national level in the years ahead. That expectation is confirmed by recent independent surveys, for example by the Confederation of British Industry, which suggest that the


economic outlook for the Province is fairly encouraging, with an increase in investment intentions and business confidence in the manufacturing sector last year, despite some instability in the financial markets.
Meanwhile, the rising incomes of those in employment can be expected to provide a further stimulus to the commercial revival of Belfast and other urban centres, and to businesses in the service sector of the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when announcing public expenditure allocations on 24 November, one of the Government's main priorities is to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy through the industrial development programme and by supporting other programmes and schemes which contribute to the development of the Province's economic potential and to long-term economic regeneration.
I turn now to the specific Estimates before the House. I do not propose to refer to every Vote for which supplementary provision is being sought, which will be a relief to the House, but instead will concentrate on the main items. I start with the Department of Agriculture's Vote 1, which provides for the Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdomwide support schemes. An additional net provision of £4·5 million is required, mainly to meet outstanding commitments on two capital grant schemes, the agricultural and horticultural development scheme and the agricultural and horticultural grants scheme, both of which have now been discontinued.
The Vote also provides for expenditure of up to £7·7 million under the national element of the agricultural improvement scheme, primarily for the provision of effluent storage and disposal facilities. The Department of Agriculture's Vote 2 requires an additional £4·6 million, the major components of which are expenditure on the grassland scheme and residual commitments under the original Northern Ireland agricultural development programme, which ceased taking new investment in 1986.
General support to industry is covered by the Department of Economic Development's Vote 2. An extra £7 million is required to meet the current level of expenditure on industrial development grants under selective financial assistance agreements. That reflects continuing success by the Industrial Development Board in its main task of promoting and safeguarding employment. That increased expenditure is offset by reduced requirements, such as a reduction of £2 million for industrial development loans. The need for public sector loan assistance has been less than anticipated, reflecting a welcome increase of private sector involvement in the funding of projects. When the pluses and minuses are taken into account, the net additional provision for this vote is some £4·8 million.
The Department of Economic Development is also seeking increases in the provision for its Votes 3, 4 and 5. The House will note that those are "token" Supplementary Estimates, each for £1,000. Their purpose is to draw attention to various increases in expenditure which are being offset by savings elsewhere.
The final economic development Vote requiring an increase is Vote 6 — administration and miscellaneous services. The additional £1·5 million sought is required for increased staff costs arising from the implementation of further employment measures, including the expansion of the restart programme. In addition, the Department's computer facilities will be upgraded to cope with an

increased workload. This, together with other efficiency measures, will improve management information and thus the service provided to the public.
Next we come to the Department of the Environment Vote 1 which covers roads, transport and ports. Some £3 million has been channelled into an extended programme of structural maintenance works on roads. That includes the repair works made necessary by the severe flooding of last October, for which additional resources were made available to Northern Ireland from the contingency reserve. Much of that has been financed by additional receipts and savings, leaving a net supplementary estimate of some £600,000.
On the Department of the Environment Vote 4, additional provision is sought to meet increased expenditure on environmental and miscellaneous services, including £4 million for the Belfast programme, £1·5 million for land acquired for the Ballymacoss development scheme and £600,000 for the general grant to district councils. However, the additional expenditure has been partly offset by savings and additional receipts within the Vote, leaving a net requirement of a little over £4 million.
In the Department of Education, Supplementary Estimates are being sought in Votes 2, 3, 4 and 5. In Vote 2, higher and further education, an extra £3·2 million is sought. That is largely required to cover grants to the two Northern Ireland universities, reflecting mainly the recommendations of the University Grants Committee, and to cover the additional costs of the pay award for further education lecturers agreed earlier this year. Additional requirements are partly offset by savings arising from lower than estimated numbers of awards for postgraduate study and by savings on the in-service training of teachers.
An additional £476,000 is sought under Vote 3 for Department of Education miscellaneous services and administration. Total increases in that Vote are £918,000, but those are partly offset by reduced requirements, mainly in respect of loan liabilities. I particularly draw the House's attention to the £200,000 required for our new community relations initiative to promote cross-community contact between schools and among the young people in Northern Ireland. Also to be noted is the £85,000 required to fund the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, whose main objective will be to promote high standards of education in these schools.
Other additions include extra resources for the Belfast urban programme, provision for the Northern Ireland contribution to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, payments to the Northern Ireland Training Authority in respect of the open learning centre, and increased expenditure on departmental administration, mainly on consultants' fees and equipment.
In Vote 4, which covers grants to education and library boards, an additional £11·4 million is sought. Some £8·4 million is for recurrent grants to boards, including increased expenditure of £3·5 million on rates, £2·2 million on salary costs and £2·1 million for mandatory awards and special schools. The increases sought will also enablle education and library boards to carry out certain essential maintenance work on school buildings. In particular, there will be extra money to cover the costs of repairs to schools in the Western board area, following the storms last autumn.
The additional provision in capital grants to education and library boards is £4·5 million. That is partly offset by


increased receipts from the sale of land and buildings of some £1·5 million. The increased provision for capital grants is required mainly for conversion work due to the closure of gas undertakings in Northern Ireland, for expenditure on the capital elements of the youth training programme and on the vocational education and 11-to-16 programmes.
Turning to the Department of Health and Social Services, gross spending on health and personal social services this year will increase by £28·6 million. Some £2·1 million of this provision is the Northern Ireland share of the £100 million additional resources made available from the reserve in 1987–88 for the health services throughout the United Kingdom, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 16 December. Of the total increase, some £16·7 million will go to health and social services boards. That will enable them to meet most of the cost of higher than anticipated pay settlements in 1987–88.
The £28·6 million increase in spending will contribute towards maintaining the high standard of health and personal social services which we have in Northern Ireland, and assist in the process of transition from institutional to community care for those in long-stay accommodation. That is in line with one of the main themes of the regional strategy — the development of community care as a real alternative to care in institutions. The increase in the capital programme of just over £1 million will be applied principally to minor works and the essential replacement of medical equipment. The sum of £9 million is required for family practitioner services to meet increased demand and higher costs, particularly in the pharmaceutical services.
In the social security programme, an additional provision of £15·4 million is sought, £6·3 million of which is for DHSS Vote 3, for administration and miscellaneous services, of which £3·4 million is needed to ensure the successful completion of the reforms in the administration of social security benefits and to maintain momentum in the computerisation programme. The balance of £2·9 million is required to meet a shortfall in receipts from the national insurance fund.
Finally, in Vote 4, an additional £9·1 million is required to meet increased expenditure on the supplement to the national insurance fund, supplementary pensions, attendance allowance, payments into the social fund, maternity grants and expenditure on retail prices index adjustment payments.
I have outlined with remarkable completeness the main expenditure provisions in the draft order, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to learn that it is not our intention to divide on the order, and we hope that we will not detain the House at great length. I assume that those hon. Members who are present are interested in the order to follow.
We generally welcome the order and the Minister's statement, particularly on the Government's recognition of the importance of public expenditure in supporting economic development and developing essential services in Northern Ireland. We welcome the publication for the first

time of the commentary by the Northern Ireland Office. In some cases it is an apology for public policy, but it is a welcome development. The commentary says on page 9:
The Government's public expenditure plans for Northern Ireland must take account of the political, economic and social conditions in the Province.
Against that background, I would like to examine the Government's proposals and judge them in the light of the economic and social needs in the Province.
The Northern Ireland economy has deteriorated over the past 20 years. Since the early 1970s, there has been a massive decline in employment, particularly in manufacturing industry. Industries such as the synthetic fibre industry have virtually disappeared. Industrial output is now well below the level of 1973. Unemployment figures are consistently twice the national average, with more and more people falling into the category of long-term unemployed.
The future economic prospects are not good, particularly in traditional industrial areas such as shipbuilding, textiles and clothing, all of which have an uncertain future. Many people are living on the poverty line. Low pay, especially among women, is endemic. Since 1979, the inequality gap has widened substantially. That is not a phenomenon peculiar to Northern Ireland; it has occurred throughout the United Kingdom since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was first elected in 1979. So it is against that economic background that we need to examine the needs of Northern Ireland.
The overriding need of the Province is for peace. I regret the absence of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and his hon. Friends who, in a show of pique some 20 minutes ago, absconded from the House, presumably to take an early bath and have an early night. They did not think the matter sufficiently important to stay here at this relatively early hour to discuss the essential economic and social requirements—in addition to security—of Northern Ireland. I deplore the hon. Gentleman's absence and the manner of his leaving.
As I said, the Province's overriding need is for peace. Since the start of the troubles in 1969, there has been tragic loss of life and a crippling effect on the economy and economic development of the Province. Figures published in 1984 by the New Ireland Forum estimate the direct costs of the troubles at about £4·5 billion, and further indirect costs in lost economic and employment opportunities at about £3·3 billion — a total cost to the economy of about £8 billion. An economy as fragile as that of Northern Ireland cannot bear that sort of crippling expenditure. It is only through the pursuit and attainment of peace in Northern Ireland that these costs can be removed and more and more finance channelled into economic and social development.
I do not intend, as did the Minister, to pick out detailed points from the order. Rather, I want to highlight areas which are of concern to my party, and which require further explanation and additional expenditure. I shall mention them in conjunction with the relevant spending Departments.
First, I mention the Department of Economic Development. Will the Minister who is to reply comment on the future of Harland and Wolff? Last Thursday I put down some questions on that subject to the Under-Secretary of State. It is vital that the Minister takes this opportunity to dispel rumours about the future of the company. The Government and the House accept that


Harland and Wolff is of strategic importance to the economy of Northern Ireland, and vital to hundreds of small suppliers which depend on the yard for orders. It is essential that the Minister give a positive answer on the future of the company.
Will the Minister also turn his mind to the issue of the Northern Ireland electricity board and the Kilroot phase 2 conversion? What do the Government have in mind for the future ownership of the board? We are keen that they should take the decision to proceed with the Kilroot phase 2 development. With regard to the Department of the Environment, the Government's commentary states:
Poor housing has been a major social problem in the past".
That is a sentiment and conclusion with which we agree wholeheartedly.
If that has been true in the past—we believe that the problem continues today — why have the Government taken decisions to reduce expenditure on housing when we know that, first, house waiting lists are increasing; secondly, that new building by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is being reduced; thirdly, that the numbers of dwellings in need of repair is increasing; fourthly, that the backlog on improvement and repairs is increasing; and, fifthly, that 51,000 homes are now classified as being unfit and that 131,000 dwellings are in serious disrepair. This is a time not for reductions in housing expenditure but for further expenditure.
I presume that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has no political axe to grind. If we accept its views, the Government's allocation of finance represents a cut in real terms off £118 million over three years. Not only will that cut lead to fewer houses being built but, we are informed by the Housing Executive, it could lead to a loss of 3,000 jobs.
In the light of reductions in housing expenditure, what is likely to happen to the development of schemes such as that at Divis? The Minister knows that I have a particular interest and concern in that scheme; I believe that that interest and concern is shared by the Minister.
With regard to education, despite what the Minister has said about additional expenditure in certain areas, we believe that further expenditure is required. The Minister will know that evidence has been provided by the education and library boards and the teaching trade unions about, first, the increasing numbers of teachers leaving the education system and, secondly, despite an increase of £500,000 that was announced a few months ago, the fact that there is still a growing backlog of school repairs. That shows that further expenditure is required.
I draw the Minister's attention to the provision for youth, sport, recreation and community services, which is outlined on page 75 of the commentary. The provision is being reduced this year and for the next two years. Will the Minister say why a reduction is being made, given that this is a time of mass unemployment in the Province, which particularly affects young people?
Hon. Members who take an interest in the problems of Northern Ireland are aware of the fact that the DHSS and the Health Service in particular are facing serious problems. That is being said not only by the Opposition but by the health boards and the National Health Service trade unions in the Province. What we are witnessing in the Province is a growing and potentially catastrophic crisis in the National Health Service.
The Minister has no excuse for being ignorant of the scale of the problem. It has been brought to his attention

many times. He must know that in key areas the numbers of beds are being reduced. Evidence to support that argument appears on page 87 of the Government commentary. Waiting lists are growing; staff morale is at its lowest ever ebb.
The problems are highlighted by the desperate proposals of the Eastern health board. To save £7·6 million, it has had to make the dramatic proposal of a cut in surgical beds of approximately 100 and the rationalisation of vital casualty services in Belfast. In this sense, rationalisation means a reduction in the level of service rather than maintaining the existing level of service or providing better service at reduced expenditure.
The Minister must also be aware of the major reduction in services at Lagan Valley hospital in Lisburn, proposed by the Eastern health board. These proposals and others have rightly provoked an outcry of rage in Northern Ireland. The solution to the problem lies in the Government's hands and it is for them to produce it.
The Minister of State mentioned social security. I realise that he has limited discretion in that area of policy-making, but I direct his attention to the implications of the introduction of the social fund to Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that, in 1986, more than £38 million was disbursed in single payments. In the first year of the social fund—1988–89—the social fund budget provides for only £21·1 million, of which only £7·2 is available as grant. That represents a horrendous cut for the poorest in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members believe that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office should be pushing their right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury and at the DHSS in London to ensure that further additional funds are provided for the Province in the light of its economic plight and the desperate need of many people in poverty.
The Opposition recognise the imperative of security — despite what the Minister said in his reply to the previous debate—but it must not be at the expense of other services, which appears to be the case in some key aspects. Despite some of the opinions expressed in the previous debate, we need to encourage further economic co-operation with the Republic. I accept that at the moment political difficulties make further progress in that direction difficult for the Government. However, we should continue to press the view that further economic co-operation is vital for the development of the economies of both the North and the South of Ireland. We must impress on those on both sides of the border that the island of Ireland is one market and not two markets arbitrarily divided by a land frontier.
We need to encourage more inward investment. In that context, I suspect that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may have words to say about fair employment legislation at some time in the near future. If we are to encourage more inward investment to the Province, especially from the United States, the Government must show beyond any shadow of a doubt their commitment to fair employment opportunities for both communities in Northern Ireland. Unless they do that, the problem will continue to cast a shadow on incoming American investment in the Province. For the sake of those living in Northern Ireland, we must encourage as much investment a s we possibly can.
The House will be pleased to know that we shall not be calling a Division on the order. We welcome many aspects of the order, but I hope that the Minister will answer some of my substantive points on it.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I very much regret the absence of colleagues from the North of Ireland who have left the Chamber. I am struck by the fact that, last week, a filibuster took place, for the ostensible reason that the debate should not be allowed to continue while colleagues of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were in gaol. I have checked with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), and have discovered that all the hon. Members are now out of gaol. The excuse this week seems to be different, although, judging by the suntan of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, there may be something attractive about gaol at present. I fear, however, that we shall have to do without the intellectual input and the unique insights that we would have encountered had those hon. Members remained in the Chamber.
I shall be very brief, and I shall say nothing that I have not said many times before to the Ministers concerned. The Minister, who has responsibility for the environment, knows that I believe—and I believe that he knows that I am right—that proper funding has never been given to the part of my constituency known as South Armagh. The Minister has already created a precedent in relation to Health Service spending in one of the area boards, on the ground that it had previously been underfunded. I ask him to take especial interest in the roads in the area, so that they can be brought up to a standard equal to that in the rest of the constituency, and of the North of Ireland.
Let me impress on the Minister the concern about the completion of phases 2 and 3 of the Newry bypass—not, of course, to the detriment of expenditure in the rest of the area. It is crucial that the rural areas that have suffered from neglect for so long are brought up to date, and up to the required standard. It is essential that phases 2 and 3 be continued very quickly, because, as the Minister knows—being well aware of the geographical circumstances of Newry—because of the river and the canal, there is at present only one way in and one way out. A huge bottleneck will result from the completion of phase 1.
If the Minister has a chance to visit the area in the near future, I hope that he will be able to bring good news about both the bypass and the continuing nuisance of the presence of the customs station on what is known as the Dublin road. It is the most appalling situation imaginable. No doubt the Minister will readily tell me that it does not come within his brief, and I accept that. But the roads on which the lorries are parked do, and when he sees the bottleneck created in a residential part of the town which carries an enormous volume of traffic towards Dublin, I think he will agree that there has been undue delay.
I have heard from people involved in the proposed building of the new customs station that there has been a nod from on high, suggesting that there should be no rush. That is causing enormous problems, and will continue to do so.
Again, the Minister will know that my requests are very humble. I am satisfied with very little—and I receive very little, so I am not very satisfied.
In the past three years, the expenditure on street lighting in my constituency could be counted on two hands. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is an

accurate assessment. I have sought confirmation from the Department that expenditure will be made on various places such as Peter's place in Newry, the Dublin road in Newry and the Monog road in Crossmaglen. However, I am then told that the only expenditure will be on new housing. What is wrong with the people in the existing housing? They should receive such expenditure after waiting years and years to get it. I know that I have raised simple constituency matters, but I believe that all hon. Members would agree that those people who believe that such matters are simple are taking a simplistic approach to the subject.
Will the Minister also consider the problem of water supply to farmers in the Granemore area? I think that it is incredible that, in this day and age, farmers cannot avail themselves of the mains water supply. They can be taken to court and prosecuted if effluent from their farmyards and silos seeps into public streams and rivers, yet those farmers do not have a water supply to wash and properly tend their farmyards and farm buildings, so it is unfair that they should risk prosecution. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter, because it is archaic that people are expected to farm without a proper mains water supply.
I am rather confused about the agricultural development programme. I had hoped that, towards the end of the month, that programme would be announced. However, having listened to the Minister, I am not sure whether that will happen. It is absolutely essential that that programme is quickly reinstated for the farming community in the North of Ireland. I may have misunderstood the Minister; I hope that I did, because I am keen that that programme is re-established. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he replies.
Another broad area of crucial importance is the position of the Northern Ireland farmer in relation to the non-devaluation of the green pound. As a result of our unique situation, the Northern Ireland farmer must compete with the farmer from the Republic of Ireland on an inequitable basis. The devaluation of the green pound in the Republic means that those farmers are able to outbid and outbuy the Northern Ireland farmer consistently. I know that that problem does not exist in England. However, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South has said, Ireland is one island, irrespective of the political divisions. Indeed, agriculture is an example of how things should be geared. As it stands now it makes no sense: it should be dealt with on an all-Ireland basis.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to go into details about how pigs or cows often stray across the border, and the headage payments that must be met when those animals stray. One way to deal with that unique form of farm diversification would be to equalise the green pound rate so that the Northern Irish farmer is not at a disadvantage.
The rural development programme has already been studied by the European Parliament and reported on by the Maher report, and it must be given serious consideration. Until we get to grips with all the factors that affect the rural farming community in terms of infrastructure, job creation and agriculture, we will never do anything more than a piecemeal job.
My final point relates to the provisions of the new Social Security Bill. It has been rightly stated that less money will be available under the social fund than was available under special permits. I could speak for a long


time about the potential effects of the Social Security Bill, but I shall home in on one issue and ask the Minister to examine it carefully.
It seems that the Bill will affect mostly those people who are not well below the required income for subsistence, but those who are borderline cases. Those who have jobs but are very poorly paid and have dependants in their homes will move from family income supplement to family credit and will lose, especially in regard to school meals.
I visited a number of schools in my constituency and talked to teachers, pupils, parents and those who work in the school kitchens. There is no question or doubt that, as a result of this legislation, many children will not get one square meal a day. There is no question whatsoever that much of the £2·55 per week allocated to school meals in the family credit system will not go towards feeding those children in the way that school meals now feed them. That will be a serious social problem that can be avoided. Because of the unique problems of the North of Ireland, we should ensure that every child at school has at least one square meal in the day. We should get to grips with that problem before it becomes as immense as I believe it will.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To save time tomorrow, at the outset of my speech I referred to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party as the hon. Member for South Down. May I correct that, out of deference to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and give his correct constituency, namely the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)?

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Once again in speaking to this appropriation order I must object most vehemently to the way in which such orders are imposed upon the Province. From time to time, I have paid tribute to the Government for their commitment to the needs of the people. Sadly, I cannot pay any compliments on this occasion, when the Government are abrogating their responsibility to our beleaguered Health Service.
In the absence of democratic institutions within the various health hoards, the Minister simply cannot fudge the issues for which he must carry the can. He cannot run out of the kitchen to escape the heat. If he considers that the people whom he has appointed are not fulfilling their obligations, he should say so categorically and without reservation. He cannot simply say that there is no more money.
There is a strong suspicion in the Health Service that resources are not being effectively deployed and that they are being absorbed to maintain a top-heavy bureaucratic administration.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned that the Eastern health and social services board has assessed a shortfall in funds for 1988–89 of £7·6 million and the area executive team has identified options which it says need to be considered within the service.
There are widespread objections to some of these options, and where they specifically affect the elderly population and those in need of medical care I wholeheartedly endorse them. The Minister must be aware that the public have not been convinced that Health Service spending is adequate, particularly when there is a

steady increase in the number of 75-year-olds, with corresponding problems that will create the greatest demand on medical and social services.
It is in that context that any proposal to reduce geriatric provision must be considered. In my constituency the Throne hospital, although an old building, has provided the most cost-effective and economic geriatric care in the Eastern board's region. Any proposal to close that hospital would be a tragic betrayal of the rights of the elderly to gain hospital care, where needed. Too often in the past the needs of our elderly population have been neglected and overridden. The Throne hospital has an occupancy in excess of 90 per cent., with over 75 per cent. of the patients requiring long-stay care.
Such patients are a heavy responsibility on the nursing service. They require considerable attention. I pay my respects to the staff of this hospital who have striven to provide such a high standard of care for their patients, as is evidenced by the active, voluntary and continuing fund-raising programme that provides furnishings, comforts and outings for these inmates.
North Belfast has a greater proportion of residents who are over 65 than anywhere else in the Province. That population will continue to increase, particularly over the next two decades, so, instead of decreasing facilities, the Department should be looking at ways of increasing them. The suggestion that private nursing homes will accommodate patients at present requiring long-term care is incorrect. It is deceitful to suggest that they could in any way cater for those people, who in my opinion should be accommodated in the Throne hospital
I trust that, in the light of what I have said, the Minister will examine very carefully any proposal regarding the Throne hospital. Then I sincerely believe that he will concur with my views in relation to one of the best and the most caring establishments for the elderly in the Province.
Another matter that I must bring to the Minister's attention concerns the Mater hospital. There is a proposal to close the casualty department from 3.30 pm every day, with the possibility of complete closure at weekends, together with the closure of gynaecology wards and a reducation in the number of surgical beds. I respectfully ask the Minister to visit this hospital, which for the last 100 years has served the people of north Belfast impartially and has delivered the highest standards of care that are available anywhere.
If these proposals are implemented, the people of north Belfast will lose an acute hospital to which they have every right. The casualty department serves north Belfast and also other areas, such as Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, Greenisland, Antrim, Whiteabbey, Ballyclare and Glengormley. If these proposals go ahead, the people of north Belfast and those who live in a large part of the county of Antrim will lose a valuable and essential accident and emergency service. In such a case there would be no casualty service between Ballymena and the Royal or City hospitals. That would inevitably lead to the death of seriously ill patients in transit from any of these areas.
In addition, my constituency has the highest number of sectarian incidents in the Province. The Mater hospital has played more than its part in saving the lives of patients, who would almost certainly have died if they had been transferred to any other hospital. The Mater hospital also treats a large number of children. If the unit closed at 3.30 pm, these children would have to be treated at the


children's hospital in the Royal complex, which is stretched to breaking point and could not possibly cope with the increased work load.
Eleven million pounds is currently being invested in a much-needed new block for the Mater hospital. This new block was intended to house a new casualty unit, a new X-ray suite and an observation ward, and to provide updated and more modern facilities to meet the health care needs of the people. I am very concerned that any dilution of services at the Mater will result in the new block becoming a vastly expensive white elephant with no acute services left to be transferred to it. Surely it would be a more financially sound proposition to ensure that acute services were retained as at present, so that completely efficient use could be made of this new facility.
The Eastern board, in a strategic plan document, recognises the need to make increased use of the resources of the Mater hospital because of this investment. It now appears to me that financial logic and the needs of the patients are being totally disregarded in a frantic effort to cut money from budgets.
I would also contend that the board would not realise the financial savings estimated to accrue from these proposals inasmuch as much greater demand would be placed on the ambulance service to transport patients to and from hospitals, thereby increasing the amount of money that would be needed to meet that demand.
Going on to the section on housing services, I take issue with the Minister on the cut-off date for repairs grant aid, which has been standing at 31 December 1956 for far too long. The Department, as the funder of the scheme, has set these rules and guidelines, and the Housing Executive cannot entertain applications for properties built after 1956. The Minister must be aware that in the period 1958–1960 we experienced some of the very poorest housebuilding. The owners of these properties are now having to live with the results of the jerry-building of those houses. It seems completely unfair that the Housing Executive can actively pursue a repair and renovation programme based on a 25-year cycle which now caters for properties built up to 1963, whereas the private tenants, most of whom purchased their houses with the encouragement of the Prime Minister, have been left out on a limb without any means of redress. I suggest to the Minister that he raise the cut-off point to an appropriate level, in the interest of justice and fair play for those who accept the responsibility and consequences of home ownership.
In conclusion, further to any proposals to cut provision for the elderly, serious consideration should also be given to the criteria for housing need in sheltered schemes provided by housing associations. The Housing Executive now operates on a basis of 35 places per 1,000, fixed by the Department and based on Scottish special criteria. But this is completely inappropriate to the Belfast situation, where we have had a drift of the younger and more mobile familes to the suburbs, which has left the population completely distorted, with a much higher proportion of elderly in need of care. Apparently it is the Government's intention to release more elderly back into the community, but if this is the case they must provide the type of accommodation needed to cater for them. There are little

pockets of land all over Belfast in areas very compatible with the needs of the elderly where sheltered schemes could be built quickly and economically.
I ask the Minister to examine this acute situation sympathetically and as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I charge the Government with financial discrimination against Northern Ireland in the Health Service. In the recent review of public expenditure for the United Kingdom, Great Britain was given a 6·3 per cent. increase to allow for inflation for the financial year 1988–89, but Northern Ireland was granted only 5·3 per cent. That means only one thing: the Government are discriminating against the sick in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to think again.
The Northern Ireland health boards will have less real money than last year when they made cuts. Public expenditure cuts last year and in preceding years have deeply and adversely affected the hospital and other services. That has been particularly true in my constituency.
Last summer the Minister published a regional strategic plan for health in the Province. The disparity in the provision to meet inflation in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland means that the Minister's strategic plan has been undermined. There will be less real money available this year than last year, taking inflation into account. There will be further reductions in the number of beds available in hospitals for ordinary and geriatric patients and less money available for the services provided by district nurses and home helps. Day centres, too, will be affected, although they are very useful to the people. There will be less money available for the disabled and mentally handicapped.
I represent an area of great population growth. There is also a high percentage of elderly and retired people in the area, yet North Down and the adjoining Ards area are facing massive and unacceptable cuts in hospital and social services. To save money, the Eastern health board is considering the closure of the accident and emergency facilities at Ards hospital and the transfer of patients to the Ulster hospital at Dundonald.
I do not see how the Dundonald hospital can cope with the extra patients. Last year 26,000 people were treated by the casualty unit in the Ards hospital in Newtownards. So many extra patients at the Ulster hospital, where people already have to wait long periods, would create an intolerable and unacceptable situation. It would add considerably to the misery not only of patients but of their families. At the very least nothing should be done by the Government until extra money has been made available for the Ulster hospital at Dundonald to increase facilities and medical and other staff.
The Government are thinking of saving money with cuts here, there and everywhere. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, they should cut out the fat in the bureaucracy. I urge the Minister, instead of cutting and saving money, to think of the cost in human terms. Regional hospitals have provided a good standard of medical and nursing care and support at Dundonald, Bangor, Newtownards and in the geriatric unit at Crawfordsburn hospital. But year by year the Government have chipped away at the hospitals in North Down and elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
There is an additional problem. The Eastern area board, which covers North Down and Ards, also takes in the city of Belfast, to the detriment of the hospital facilities in my area. For years I have advocated dividing the Eastern board and establishing a separate board for Belfast so that a proper and balanced Health Service could be provided in North Down.
It is essential in a modern society—I hope that the Minister will heed my words—to provide a decent level of health care, and sufficient resources should be made available to ensure such a service. I have been impressed by the dedication of the staff at the Bangor, Ulster and Ards hospitals, but every reduction in service means a reduction in medical staff, student nurses, ancillary staff and, of course, in all the other facilities that should be available.
In addition to social factors, which are relevant when considering the question of hospital facilities, the age of the population is highly relevant. In the Eastern health board area, those over the age of 65 account for 50 per cent. of the use of all hospital facilities. The work load has increased in the Eastern health board area with a 6 per cent. increase in admissions to general hospitals, despite a decrease of 9 per cent. in the number of beds available. The reduction in the number of beds is due to the board's cut, dictated by the Government.
The number of surgical beds has been reduced by 15 per cent., despite the 11 per cent. increase in the number of major operations. That is surely bad for those in need of medical care. Waiting lists continue to increase and that means further anxiety and suffering for many patients and their relatives. I refer particularly to the waiting lists for ophthalmic surgery which are at an all-time high, despite the efficiency of the staff.
The ophthalmic medical staff at the Royal Victoria hospital, a distinguished team led by Professor Archer, stated in a submission to the Eastern health board:
The past two decades have seen a progressive decline in the funding of the ophthalmic specialty in the Eastern Area Board both relative to similar ophthalmic specialties elsewhere in the United Kingdom and other surgical specialties in Northern Ireland … centralisation of the speciality at the Royal Victoria Hospital site has resulted in a net loss of 4 operating sessions and the reduction of ophthalmic beds far below any norm for ophthalmic inpatient accommodation in the United Kingdom.
The staff stated that the minimum required to provide a basic ophthalmological service for the area is the provision of a third operating theatre and the necessary running costs, an immediate increase in the ophthalmic bed complement, the appointment of two consultant ophthalmic surgeons, the improvement of out-patient facilities and nursing services to take care of the current patient load and allow some development of day surgery, and the funding of the outstanding ophthalmic equipment list, amounting to about £250,000.
I hope that the submission made by the ophthalmic unit at the Royal Victoria hospital will be studied carefully by the Minister. I do not expect him to answer tonight, but I should like, in due course, to hear from him that he is prepared to respond positively to the proposals of Professor Archer and his team.
The threatened closure of Crawfordsburn hospital, which deals with geriatrics, continues to cause anxiety to the staff, the residents and their relatives. I have been told that approaches have been made to a private nursing home in Donaghadee to take 40 residents from Crawfordsburn.
I should like to know whether there is any truth in that rumour. What will happen to the residents who wish to remain in the Crawfordsburn area so that they can be close to their relatives?
I do not understand how vitally needed money is denied to hospitals, which could provide essential services, yet money is made available by the Local Enterprise Development Unit to establish some private residential homes, while it is not given to others. I should like to know from the Minister how much taxpayers' money has been spent in setting up such residential homes, which are companies for private profit. Presumably, money is provided only to establish industries where no similar industry exists, but Northern Ireland has a plethora of private nursing homes. Therefore, I should like to know how much taxpayers' money has been spent setting up those homes, and how much money will go back to the taxpayer or at least be made available to the hospitals.
I conclude by making a personal appeal to the Minister. I urge him to provide more money for hospital services in the North Down area. I urge him to come with me to meet the surgeons in those hospitals and the consultants, doctors, housemen, nurses and ancillary staff who work together to provide what I believe is the most efficient hospital service in the whole of the United Kingdom. I ask him to come and meet them because if he listens to them and sees their patients and the patient care and studies the record of their work, I am sure that he will come to only one conclusion and will provide more money for a service that is vitally needed in my constituency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I shall, of course, respond to the points that have been made by hon. Members as fully as I am capable, but if, by any chance, I miss one jot or tittle of a comment that has been made, I shall study Hansard most carefully and write in full.
I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) to our debates on appropriation orders, which are usually rather more colourful affairs than we have been able to have tonight, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) removed himself and his colleagues from the Chamber. Further, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is not here. Therefore, what is usually a fairly thick Irish stew has turned into rather thin gruel. I mean that with no disrespect to the hon. Members who have contributed. However, it means that perhaps we shall get through the feast rather quicker than we usually do.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South will considerably broaden his experience and understanding of Northern Ireland affairs when he has been through a series of these debates. I am grateful to him for the fact that he has no intention of seeking to divide the House this evening, and supports—or rather does not oppose—the Government's expenditure plans. However, the fact of the matter is, as he well knows—as do most hon. Members — that about 70 per cent. of the GDP of Northern Ireland is generated through public expenditure. Even for the wettest of the wets, that figure must cause some alarm in terms of the requirement to improve private sector income generation, wealth creation and so on. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, it may interest him, and the House, to know that public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is 40 per cent. higher than the figure for


the rest of the United Kingdom. We must consider public expenditure as a whole in the light of those large sums of money. I shall deal in a moment with the points made by the hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) as to whether it is realistic to suppose that at the present time this Government, or any other, could increase the amount of public expenditure in the Province.
I cannot agree altogether with some of the comments by the hon. Member for Leicester, South because, having accepted, it seemed to me, the basis of the Government's position, he then went on to make calls for substantial additional funding. Nor can I altogether agree with some of the comments that he made about the future of some of the industries. He is quite right to say that some of the basic industries of Northern Ireland face difficult times, but I am not prepared to accept, for example, that textiles, clothing or linen are industries which are not doing extremely well in Northern Ireland at the moment, that they have not got a fine record and that they are not likely to improve on that record in future.
I hope that the hon. Member will, on reflection, reconsider that point, because I am sure that he would not want his words to give the impression that those industries are not doing well and will not continue to do well. They have a very fine record and make some very fine products.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that the Minister does not wish to take my remarks out of the context in which I made them and that, on reflection, he will accept that the industries to which I referred employed in the past substantially more people than they do now. The point that I sought to make was that the industries which employed substantial numbers of people in the past are no longer capable of sustaining those levels of employment.

Mr. Needham: I accept that point, but there are many industries which employ substantially fewer people than in the past and which now have very much higher levels of output, productivity and wealth creation. If the hon. Member looks at industries making linen, clothing and textiles such as Desmonds, for example, he will see enormously successful companies. I hope that this success will continue.
Agriculture faces difficult times, not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of Europe too. The Government understand and accept the problems of agriculture in Northern Ireland, and spend approximately four times more money in agricultural support there than they do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member asked me about Harland and Wolff. I have nothing further to add to the answers given to questions by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State last week. The future of the yard must depend on the ability of the management to win orders within the European Community sixth directive on shipbuilding. That cannot be the Government's responsibility; it must be the responsibility of the management.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South went on to ask me about Northern Ireland Electricity, and the decision on whether or not to proceed with phase two of the Kilroot conversion. As he is well aware, no new generating capacity is expected to be required in Northern Ireland until the mid-1990s. The Government will, of course, consider and evaluate the options, including phase two of

Kilroot, before coming to a decision on what would be the most appropriate additional generating capacity at that time.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South also questioned the amount of support being given in the housing budget in Northern Ireland. He commented on the number of houses that are unfit and in need of repair. While I accept that the figures are not as good as any of us would like, they have improved dramatically in the past seven or eight years, with unfitness coming down from 14 per cent. I am certain that when the new figures come out from the household survey they will be lower than that. The Government accept that there is a major requirement to continue the housebuilding programme in the public sector at higher levels than elsewhere in the country; and this year the amount that will be spent on public housebuilding in Northern Ireland, in capital expenditure, will be double the amount spent in England. The public expenditure contribution is £338 million, with a gross expenditure of £552 million.
The Government are determined to move from public expenditure, where it has fulfilled the needs, to more private expenditure in joint ventures with the private sector. More will be done with housing associations—a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North — which is a crucial area of joint partnership. We are spending much more with the private sector on urban regeneration. The sum of £21 million will be spent in Belfast in the forthcoming year. Castle Court is a major new scheme costing £60 million, £50 million of which will come from the private sector, and £10 million from the Government, to rebuild and regenerate the heart of Belfast.
The Laganside proposal will cost £240 million spread over 10 years, £210 million of which will come from the private sector and £30 million from the public sector. The Government will provide the infrastructure for the scheme to go ahead. We have announced in our forward rolling programme plans for new bridges across the Lagan — road and rail bridges, which will cost £60 million.
In Londonderry the William street and Spencer road development will be funded totally by the private sector — a scheme worth some £11 million. Throughout the Province we want to build on the success of regenerating the private sector — industrially, commercially and in retailing.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South referred to the problems facing the construction industry because of the reduction of Government money. The hon. Member must look at the whole construction industry and take in what is happening in the private sector. The industry figures in the third quarter of this year were up by 22 per cent. when compared with last year. Many major public and private construction projects are coming forward in the programme over the next few years. The redevelopment of Great Victoria street, which is crucial to Belfast, involves spending £3·5 million for the provision of a new multi-storey car park and a new bus station, which, together with retailing and commercial aspects, will cost a total of £10 million.
We are not forgetting the need to provide adequate funding in the public sector. The hon. Member mentioned Divis. I am sure he is aware that we have come forward with the proposal to have Divis knocked down, as well as Unity and Rossville flats. It is not only a question of finding the finance; it is a question of priorities and time


and finding the space and a place for those people to go to, particularly in west Belfast, where housing space is not easy to find. So those things must be phased in.
We must proceed as fast as we can, within the constraints of the budget and while ensuring that adequate land is available, not only for construction but for the future of west Belfast; land that can be used for industrial and commercial development.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister accept that if the proposals put forward by the Divis residents' association and their planners were accepted, which could form the basis of a planned redevelopment, many of the people who remain in Divis would be able to live on the existing site in the new homes?

Mr. Needham: Many of the people would, but not all of them. We already have a large waiting list. It is not possible to redeploy all the people at the moment and put them into the areas to which they want to go. The balance must be struck between the facilities available and funding in the budget.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South next spoke about education provision and drew particular attention to the backlog of school repairs. He will appreciate that the position has been fully recognised in recent expenditure allocations. An additional £1·5 million has been made available this year for additional minor works and maintenance on schools, and 24 major new school projects have been released at an overall cost of £21 million. The House will accept that this is a clear indication of the priority that the Government accord to education.
While the hon. Member for Leicester, South spoke of reductions in provision for some recreation and community services, he will appreciate, having accepted the overall thrust of the Government's policies, that this has not been an easy year from the point of view of the public expenditure survey in Northern Ireland. We have had to make difficult decisions between the various blocks—to which I will come—in relation to health. The law and order block and the employment and industry block have taken a greater share than we had anticipated, and this has meant our being unable to do all that we would have done in more normal times.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North spoke about post-1956 dwellings constructed in his constituency not qualifying for renovation grant aid. I have written to the hon. Gentleman recently, along with the Housing Executive, pointing out that the latter is carrying out an investigation into the defects in those houses and the possibility of presenting proposals to my Department for some form of assistance to the owners. We shall examine this matter thoroughly and treat it as sympathetically as possible. The renovation grant scheme will be revised in the light of the Government's home improvement proposals for England and Wales which were published in the form of a White Paper in September 1987. These issues will be taken into account in determining the future policy and legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is no longer in his place, raised issues about roads that he has raised with me on a number of occasions. I will try as soon as possible to visit the sites with him. I can think of nothing more pleasant than spending a day travelling around the south Armagh border with the hon.

Gentleman examining the problems of the roads, even though it is not a subject which is looked at overall in a tremendously sympathetic way by the RUC. Nevertheless, I accept—in the hon. Gentleman's absence—that it is important to visit the area and see for oneself.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has also been in constant correspondence with me over the water problems of the Granemore area. I am examining ways of trying to assist, for example, by seeing whether there are EC grants which could bring mains water to the farms about which he spoke. They are not that far from mains water, and I was wondering whether a digger and some plastic pipes might be one way of solving the problem. I appreciate the problems that the present situation causes small farmers, and if anything can be done, I will examine it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to peripatetic pigs. We accept the need to try to find a way, within the EC, of getting rid of the differentials of the green pound and abolishing the differing green rates and the MCA system. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is fully aware of the strong feelings on this subject and I am sure that he will take it up in Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is agreement in the EC that these differing green rates should disappear. Although I cannot give him a date, I can tell him that the special aid provisions will be announced shortly. They remain at £7·5 million, which is a significant additional resource for Northern Ireland agriculture.
I turn now to the major issue that has worried and bothered hon. Members tonight—the Health Service. I say to the hon. Members for North Down and for Belfast, North that I take no pleasure in the fact that the health budget has been increased this year by only 5·2 per cent. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for North Down is engaged in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—when he has finished, perhaps he will give me his attention.
If there was any way of increasing funds for the Health Service, I should be the first to want to do so. However, I must point out that we spend 23 per cent. more per person in Northern Ireland than the rest of England and Wales. Opposition Members constantly demand that the percentage of GNP spent in the United Kingdom should be upgraded to something like the equivalent of what is spent in France and Germany. The United Kingdom spends about 6·5 per cent. of GNP on health; France and Germany spend about 9 per cent. But the figure for spending on health care in Northern Ireland is 12·5 per cent. I do not deny that such spending is necessary and important. But when the hon. Member for Belfast, North asks for more, I must ask him where it will come from. It will have to come from some other block of the Northern Ireland budget; it cannot come from the national Exchequer. The hon. Member for Leicester, South and his hon. Friends, by deciding not to divide the House, have shown that they do not completely disagree with the amount of public spending on Northern Ireland.
This year's budget has not been as much as I had hoped it would be because of the additional money spent on law and order. Some Conservative Members, and even some Opposition Members, may think that when taxpayers' funds are spent, as they are on the Health Service, it is not wholly unreasonable that all taxpayers should at least support such spending. Some hon. Members who have not been paying all their taxes in Northern Ireland have,


through their failure to pay road taxes, rates and television licences, rather put themselves out of court in this argument. Their actions do not give a good lead to the rest of the population. They also cost a lot of money because of police time, court time and prison officers' time involved. The hon. Member for Belfast, North came back — according to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—with a suntan from where he was last week. I hardly believe that, but it cost £120 a day. That £120 a day could, conceivably, have been better spent on the Health Service than on the hon. Gentleman's suntan—

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I was not incarcerated with the rest of my hon. Friends last week. Will the Minister accept from me that the people of north Belfast who are interested in the under-provision for the Health Service have, in their opinion, no responsibility for law and order or security work? Is he saying, specifically and categorically, that none of the £100 million that is being discussed for the United Kingdom will be considered for the Northern Ireland budget?

Mr. Needham: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman was not incarcerated with his colleagues. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are rules of parity. Additional money that is made available on this side of the water is made available on the other side.
My argument with the hon. Member for Belfast, North concerned the 5·2 per cent. increase in health provision in Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for North Down also raised this matter—compared with the 6·3 per cent. for the rest of the country. The reason for that is that more has had to be spent on the law and order budget. Everybody in Northern Ireland must accept some responsibility for that. It is difficult for me, as the Health Minister for Northern Ireland, to see how that matter is helped by hon. Members showing their deep opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement by refusing to pay their road tax. I fail to see the connection, as, I suspect, do most people in Northern Ireland.
I say to the hon. Members for Belfast, North and North Down that the vast majority of options being put forward by the Eastern health board are for rationalisation projects that it was considering in any event within its area strategic plan. The hon. Member for Belfast, North knows very well that three legs of our plan are preventive medicine, community care and rationalisation of acute services. As to the proposals for the Throne hospital, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said and I pay a warm tribute to the work that has been done there. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is an old building and it must make sense for the patients to be properly rehoused in better accommodation, as is envisaged by the health board. I should add that we are not talking about moving them into private nursing homes.
With regard to the accident and emergency service, we have put substantial new investment into the hospital. If proposals from the Eastern board will not make proper use of that investment, I shall have to look carefully at them. The same would apply to proposals in Down, Lagan Valley or anywhere else.
I must return to the other point that the hon. Members for Belfast, North and North Down raised. The proposals that we are bringing forward are within the strategic plan. It may be we shall have to do some things faster than others. I should like to do things that we must do slower faster and those that we must do faster slower. Nevertheless, that is the position in which we find ourselves within the block. I cannot at present foresee any likelihood of finding a large amount of additional funds.
The increase in the Northern Ireland block grant of 4·5 per cent., which is 1 per cent. or more above the rate of inflation, is commendable. I am delighted that the Opposition are not opposing that increase, and I believe that the funds that we have made available will benefit the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to give a high level of services to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 10th February, he approved.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in respect of property the possession of which becomes unlawful as a result of that Act.
The House will know that in Committee on 9 February I announced that the Government had decided on a buy-in scheme. The money resolution is an implementation of that commitment, and it is couched in very wide terms to enable hon. Members to raise any points that they think proper.
The Government's view is that payment under the scheme should be confined to weapons surrendered or otherwise disposed of by persons who lawfully held them on certificate immediately before 22 September 1987, and which will become prohibited by clause 1(2) of the Bill. For people who have already sold such weapons, we shall be ready to pay the difference between the price that they received and the level fixed under the buy-in scheme. It is not our view that the scheme should extend to dealers. Government amendments to the Bill, including an enabling clause, have already been tabled.
I am not yet in a position to give firm proposals on the details of the buy-in scheme. The Government's underlying aim is to introduce a scheme based on a fair price which bears a reasonable relationship to second-hand values in early September 1987.
It is likely that we shall operate a two-tier approach, inviting the choice by the claimant between a flat rate sum or individual claims, with evidence of purchase price or insurance value.
I must stress that a buy-in scheme has been agreed because of the unique circumstances involved; individuals are being prohibited from holding articles that they were expressly authorised to hold prior to the announcement.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister has been commendably brief, and uncharacteristically modest. I hope that the House will accept that this is a victory for the House of Commons and for Members of Parliament. The majority of the members of the Committee insisted on an opportunity, denied them by the earlier money resolution, to discuss possible compensation for those whose weapons now held legally would become illegal under the Bill. I marvel that the Minister did not acknowledge that. I am doing my best to resist the temptation to gloat at his embarrassment at this humiliating climbdown over payments to owners of weapons that will become illegal under the Bill.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is democracy.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Lady says that it is democracy. I do not argue with her, and I welcome it. However, it would have done the Minister more good if, in his brief introduction to the new money resolution, he had acknowledged that. I say, in no partisan sense and irrespective of the fact that we are in opposition at present, that the Standing Committee on this Bill has been one of

the rare Committees to behave as I believe Committees on Bills should. The issues were debated, and the Minister was defeated. The Minister has now responded, and I make no complaint about that.
On Second Reading, the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that they would listen. The Minister was on a steep learning curve in that debate, because every Conservative Back Bencher who spoke—perhaps bar one—got at his throat about the absence of a compensation scheme for weapons that are to be declared illegal. More important—this is my complaint to the Minister, who wound up the Second Reading debate—when I came to wind up for the Opposition and said that Labour was prepared to listen and think again about compensation, the Home Secretary intervened from a sedentary position to say, as reported in column 1180 of Hansard for 21 January 1988, "That is a change."
By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have any authority over this matter, but when I went to the Vote Office earlier tonight to get that copy of Hansard, I discovered that it is out of print. We have had enough trouble getting the reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Quite apart from hon. Members, those outside who are trying to follow what we are doing and who go along to the HMSO to try to buy copies of Hansard are now denied them.
Under heavy pressure from his hon. Friends behind him, the Minister was needlessly rude at the end of the Second Reading debate. He refused to deal with the constructive points that we had put to him, and at one stage there were complaints that he was turning his hack on the Opposition Front Bench from the Dispatch Box. I hope that he has learnt from that, as surely as he is learning from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Let us not have a debate about a past debate. The motion is the one on the Order Paper. That is what we should be discussing.

Mr. Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It does not matter that I welcome the new money resolution; the whole House will welcome it, because it is a proper Government response to the views of members of the Committee. The Opposition have been arguing for more effective control of firearms, and we want it to happen. We claim no credit—the Minister said that we were trying to do so—because we share the view that the public are entitled to a proper assurance of public safety, alongside the rights of those who shoot as part of their jobs, or for leisure or sport.
I do not suggest for a moment that this is the right time of night to discuss the matter, but the buy-in scheme raises a number of questions. I understand that the Minister cannot go into the details tonight, and the second money resolution that he has now laid enables the Committee to debate the subject properly. I feel, however, that lie owes the House an explanation of the difference between a buy-in scheme and compensation. The money resolution talks about making payments. That is wide, and I do not complain about it. But on what basis will the payments be made? How will the value be decided, and by whom? Why has the date of 22 September 1987 been decided on?
I have a suspicion, which I believe will be shared by some of the Minister's hon. Friends, that the real difference between compensation and the buy-in scheme


is a silly obsession on the part of the Government, who wish to avoid acknowledging the will of the Committee. I do not say that lightly. The Committee came to a view, and the Government have had to respond. I see nothing wrong with the Government, in the shape of the Minister, acknowledging that.
Perhaps, if he is able to speak again, the Minister will let us know exactly what the buy-in scheme involves. Does it refer to the purchase price, and, if so, is that the price on the date when the weapon was bought? Does it refer to the insured value, or— as the Minister suggested— to the notional market value on 22 September 1987? In the interests of the House and Back Benchers, it is important that we agree the money resolution— I make no bones about it— so that our Committee can debate and decide this important issue.
Some very wide doors may be opened. The Minister has said that he has no idea at present what the buy-in scheme will cost. There is, I believe, a way of avoiding heavy payments to owners of firearms which are to be made illegal, without in any way weakening the Government's attempt — which we support — to introduce more effective control of guns. If the Minister will consider again restricting the capacity of self-loading rifles to carry more than three or perhaps five shots within the weapon without reloading, that will dispose of the argument about whether proper control is possible of the capacity of magazines and their interchangeability. I am advised that that is technically possible and it avoids the difficulties of trying to place restrictions on magazine box capacity.
We welcome this new, wider resolution, not in a narrow or party sense, but on behalf of all hon. Members, whatever their opinion about the Bill. The resolution will enable us to discuss this extremely important matter upstairs and to decide upon a matter upon which, earlier, the Government said we could not decide.

12 midnight

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak after the grudging and ungracious speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the representations that were made to him by many hon. Members. I wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter when the Bill was introduced and I have discussed it with him many times. I am glad that my hon. Friend listened to people who put a case to him. It is extremely grudging of the Opposition not to accept the money resolution in that spirit.
There is only one matter that I wish to raise with my hon. Friend. He used the words, "not dealers". There are a number of genuine collectors who, to avoid having to change their licences every time they buy a weapon, have become part-time dealers. All sorts of people operate as part-time dealers and I hope that the Minister will consider their cases so that those dealers, who earn their livings in other ways, are not penalised and are able to take advantage of the scheme.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not wish to detain the House for long at this time, but I would like to welcome the money resolution and the Minister's explanation.
I do not consider the resolution to be the humiliating climbdown to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred. It is a sensible recognition of the considerable body of opinion, inside and outside the House, that greeted the publication of the Government's proposals. On Second Reading I believe that virtually every hon. Member who contributed made reference to the issue of compensation. In the Minister's defence—if he needs me to defend him—it should be noted that, throughout that debate, he made it clear, as did the Home Secretary, that the Government were willing to reconsider the matter of compensation. For that reason I believe that it would be rather grudging to do other than welcome the resolution now before the House.
The resolution is a recognition of the legitimacy of those who held weapons under the law as it stood. Special circumstances attach to the changes to the law now proposed by the Government and under those special circumstances compensation is a proper thing for the Government to consider and to implement. For those reasons, I believe that the resolution should be warmly accepted by the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the money resolution. In fairness it should be said that, despite all the comments that were made when the Government introduced the White Paper and on Second Reading, it seemed most unlikely that we would achieve a money resolution and compensation. It is only in the face of a failed sittings motion that we now have the money resolution and the possibility of debating in Committee either amendments to clauses or new clauses that will introduce the essential compensation. I am somewhat mystified about the difference between buy-in and compensation. There must be some subtle reason for the Government to have changed the wording from compensation to buy-in during the past week or two. I suspect there may be some Treasury small print that no doubt will be elucidated later.
The only point that I wish to make—I have hated having to say this innumerable times—is that all this could have been saved had there been proper consultation during September, October and November with the British Shooting Sports Council. Perhaps in future there will be such contact with the equivalent of an expert committee that can advise the Minister of the hazards that the Government will face if they proceed with such legislation. That is why there have been so many subsequent changes.
I am glad that the Minister accepted so many amendments. I hope that there are more to come. I welcome what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said about a compromise on self-loading rifles with perhaps a magazine of three or five rounds so that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot anticipate the debate that may take place in Committee. We have to deal with the motion on the Order Paper and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that.

Sir Hector Monro: The point is that it will substantially reduce the amount of money required in the money resolution if the Minister is able to accept my proposals. There would be savings for the Government and for many frustrated riflemen throughout the country if that were to happen.
I reiterate that I welcome the fact that the Government have moved the money resolution and look forward to debating the subsequent amendments to the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I merely want to point out that the money resolution exists because of a deficiency in the debate on 21 January. I well recall the horrified looks on the faces of the Minister and other Conservative Members when I stood up to debate the money resolution. As I said then, and as I say frequently, money resolutions should not go through on the nod.
As the debate on 21 January proceeded, it became transparent that the original money resolution was insufficient for the compensation scheme that the Minister said he would introduce. We said so on many occasions. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) also said so, but (did not think too much about it as he voted for the money resolution on 21 January.
The Opposition opposed that resolution as a gesture. As I recall, we did not intend to do so, but we said that the money resolution was inadequate, and that it reflected hasty legislation and inadequate consultation and that if the Government were to withdraw the money resolution and think again, we would be prepared to support a proper money resolution which covered a compensation or buy-in scheme—whatever the term. We knew what we were talking about, but the Minister, far from readily acknowledging the error of his position, refused to concede that there was any deficiency and, as I recall, attempted to bluster his way through, with a few sneers thrown in for those of us who were intent on helping the House by drawing attention to the deficiencies of the money resolution.
I am sure that the Minister will not begrudge me the opportunity to say "I told you so on 21 January". It is a case of the biter bit. I hope that the House will take money resolutions seriously. The House very often shoves through money in great quantities on the nod.
On 21 January, I was asking about the extent of the Government's expected revenue from the increase in fees, for the cost of administration which they were preparing with legislation. The Minister was not able to answer me, because the Government had not thought enough about the expenditure involved, and that is why we are here tonight.
I am pleased that the Minister has taken note of the representations, principally of Opposition Members, and of the subsequent representations in Committee. I think that he now recognises that he was a bit quick-tempered on that occasion. Further contemplation of the matter has led him to introduce the money resolution that we said on 21 January was necessary.

Sir John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on what he said. Unfortunately, I did not speak in the Second Reading debate. I did not think then and I do not think now that

compensation is necessary. The reason why I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is correct is that there has been a big public outcry and a demand for compensation, largely stirred up by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have had representations made to them by organisations that are financed by the trade.
The arms market is international. My hon. Friend has announced that from the relevant date there is to be a floor for such transactions. It should be no more than a floor; it should not be a costly exercise. The order should not prevent dealers from offering the full market value for surrendered weapons. There are ready buyers overseas for weapons that are surrendered here, but can still be used legally abroad. What my hon. Friend has done is circumspect and correct, but I trust that it will not cost a great deal of money.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is regrettable that under our system it is difficult for the Government to adopt a new view once they have drafted their legislation. Whether by choice or under duress, the Government have very wisely changed their mind. I welcome the new clause.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister was unable to spell out in more detail the terms of payment. That is crucial to the support that he can look for in Committee from some of his hon. Friends. In its wisdom the Committee removed clause 7 from the Bill. That considerably reduces the cost, because weapons that have been altered will not now return to their original category and need not be purchased by the Government. I hope that when new clause 1 is debated we shall be able still further to reduce the cost to the public purse. I am sure that my hon. Friend will listen with care to our arguments during that debate.
The Bill was a knee-jerk reaction to the sad and tragic events at Hungerford. Compensation will be paid for rifles that are hardly ever used in criminal activities. Out of 9,500 crimes in 1986 that involved weapons, fewer than 60 involved rifles of any sort—0.6 per cent. The idea that this legislation will reduce the use of firearms in crime is erroneous. My hon. Friend did not persuade me or anybody else who listened to the Committee proceedings of the rightness of his case.
The legislation was hasty and ill thought out and will not carry out the Government's perfectly reasonable objective of reducing crimes of any description.

Mr. Derek Conway: Like many other hon. Members, I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but I hope that the money resolution will be endorsed. I think that it is rather unfair of hon. Members, on whichever Benches they may sit, to beat my hon. Friend the Minister about the head over this matter, because he made the position quite clear on 21 January, when he said:
my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are not so arrogant as to assume that the Bill is necessarily perfect."— [Official Report, 21 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 1182.]
Throughout the Committee proceedings, and indeed before the Committee even sat, my hon. Friend made it clear that the Bill would not necessarily pass through the Committee intact. So those who feel that they are


brandishing great swords on behalf of whatever lobby are perhaps deluding themselves, if not deluding the lobby they seek to represent.
I do not think that the money resolution need be seen by my hon. Friend as a climbdown but he might perhaps wish to spell out to the House in terms of the new clause that will follow the money resolution exactly what the difference will be between weapons that are surrendered and those that are otherwise disposed of. I think that many hon. Members would be happy to see the taxpayer pay justified compensation for the surrender of firearms, but they might be less enthusiastic about seeing that money simply paid out on the basis of "otherwise disposed of" firearms, which is the term used in the Government new clause that was tabled today.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make that clear to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House cannot substitute itself for the Committee. The House must address itself to the motion on the Order Paper.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I just want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one question, as I understand that he may catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The buy-back scheme will apply to firearms. What about the equipment on the firearms? My hon. Friend will know that there are certain types of guns for which sights are expensive accoutrements intrinsic to the design and cost those who own them a good deal of money. I have had representations from various people, not least very senior shooters in the police service, who are anxious to know whether the compensation scheme covers the additional pieces of equipment that are integral to the firearm and have no value if they are removed from the weapon.
This is the time to look forward, and not back, but I would like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), the Government Whip on the Standing Committee, how grateful I am that he has obviously conveyed to the Chief Whip and the others who run the machinery of government in this place the importance of the money resolution having come to the House in time for the Committee to be able to complete its work in the knowledge that the Government have taken this difficult decision. I am grateful to those who have made it possible for the Committee to complete its work more effectively than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am very grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate for the unanimous support which I have received. It is rather refreshing, and a bit of a change. I am particularly grateful for the support that I have received on this occasion from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). That was refreshing too, and a bit of a change.
I found myself in very considerable agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) had to say about this matter, and I am grateful to him for his support. This is not a humiliating climbdown at all. In the course of the Second Reading debate, the Home Secretary and I made it

perfectly plain to those who had ears to hear that we were reconsidering our attitude. The money resolution that we have laid before the House now is a reflection of that position. So I do not regard it as a humiliating climbdown. I am a realist, but I am not humiliated on this occasion—perhaps on other occasions, but not on this one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked about dealers. It is not our intention, at least at the moment, to make any payments to dealers, basically because dealers are in a position to export and the international market price remains sound. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to make a sensible distinction, either in law or in logic, between those who are whole-time dealers and those who choose to make themselves dealers in law but are not whole-time. That was their choice, and it is very difficult to make a distinction between them.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am following the logic carefully. Will the Minister not agree that, while it is their choice, it was their choice at the time when possession of those weapons was perfectly legal in this country, and that dealers, be they full-time, part-time or whatever, are just as much caught in the web as the individual who owns one weapon? If we pass the legislation, dealers, especially part-time dealers, will be caught with the weapons in their hands and they will not be able easily to dispose of them.

Mr. Hogg: That is a fair debating point. It is one of the reasons why we have drawn the money resolution in such wide terms. We have not by its nature excluded any argument or proposition that hon. Members choose to debate. The money resolution is widely drawn, so precisely the kind of point advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) can be advanced.
But it seems to me that there is a difference between an individual who holds weapons in his individual capacity and a person who holds them in the capacity of a dealer. A dealer is in business, and there are always trades and hazards associated with being in business.
Furthermore, as I think the hon. Gentleman will accept, there remains a strong international market. Those who are in trade as gun dealers are in a much better position to dispose of weapons on the international market than are individuals who hold guns in their capacity as individuals. So, although I expect to debate such issues, I say to the House that the Government's present intention is not to extend the scheme to cover dealers, whether whole-time or part-time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) asked about equipment. This is a very difficult question, because some items of equipment are attached to the gun itself, whereas others, which might very well have been purchased to be used with that weapon, are not attached to the gun itself. Again I find it difficult to make a distinction either in law or in logic between the two classes of equipment. My present view is that the buy-in policy should extend to the gun. I suppose that it is possible that one could in logic extend that also to the bits which are fixed permanently to a gun. One could argue that they became the gun, but these are the kind of questions that we will have to consider in the context of what has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham understandably asked what we mean by "otherwise disposed of". To him I give this answer: for


people who have already sold weapons, we shall be ready to pay the difference between the price they received and the level that will be fixed under the buy-in scheme.
Hon. Members have asked what the difference is between compensation and a buy-in policy. I am not sure that there is a difference. What we are doing is buying in guns. That is why we have called it a buy-in scheme. In one sense that is compensation; in another sense it is not. Compensation could be said to extend to compensation for loss of use, for example. We do not intend to do that. What we intend to do is to buy in guns. If there be a distinction of importance, I rely on the phrase "buy in" rather than on the phrase "compensation".
This has been a happy debate, because I have received such support. I commend the money resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in respect of property the possesson of which becomes unlawful as a result of that Act.

Orders of the Day — Job Losses (Wakefield)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise certain issues which are of deep concern to my constituents within Wakefield. The last time I was present in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate at this ridiculously late hour it was to discuss the closure of the Woolley and Redbrook colliery complexes. The debate was led by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
I believe that it is appropriate to start my brief contribution in the early hours of this morning by referring to the problems that affect my constituents directly as a result of the rundown of the coal industry in the Wakefield area. I should like to refer briefly to some statistics which show the major problems affecting my constituents as a direct result of the pit closures.
In 1979, in my constituency of Wakefield, there were 4,395 jobs at eight pits. In 1988, there are only 565 jobs at one pit, the complex at Denby Grange and Calder Drift. In 1979, in the Wakefield district, there were almost 17,000 jobs in the mining industry at two pits. In 1988, there are fewer than 5,000 jobs at six pits. It is important to make the point that there are knock-on effects of pit closures. I am concerned not simply about the issue of miners' jobs, although that is important, but about the effects on the rest of the economy. I am particularly concerned about the fact that, directly following pit closures, job losses arise in manufacturing companies and service organisations supplying the goods and services to the coal industry.
The engineering industry in my constituency is extremely dependent on the prospects of the coal industry. I remind the Minister of the closure of the British Ropes factory in Wakefield in January 1986, with the loss of 180 jobs. One of the main factors contributing to that was the rundown of coal in the Yorkshire area. Several other large employers are very much dependent on the prospects of the coal industry, including British Jeffery Diamond. It currently employs 780, yet as recently as 1986 that company employed 950 people in my constituency. Fletcher, Sutcliffe, Wilde employs 385 people at its factory in Wakefield. In 1981 it employed as many as 781, so, clearly, those two companies, together with a number of smaller companies, are very dependent on the prospects of the coal industry.
In detailing the knock-on effects of the rundown of the coal industry, it is important to discuss job losses in local services caused by loss of spending power among mining families. I refer the Minister to the study carried out by Barnsley borough council, which estimated that, for every 100 jobs lost in the coal industry, an additional 24 were lost through loss of spending power by former employees in the coal industry. I understand that that is a rather conservative estimate of the impact.
There are also similar problems in my constituency in the textile industry. Recently there have been major closures at Paton and Baldwin, Listers, where several hundred people lost their jobs. Clearly, there is a similar knock-on effect in the constituency.
I do not want to give the Minister the impression that local people have not attempted to do something about the


situation. I wish to pay tribute to the role of the local authority, not just because I was chairman of its Economic Development Committee. Recently, Wakefield district council has made great efforts to attempt to offset the problems that we face in my area as a result of the declining industries, such as textiles and coal. Wakefield district council has established excellent relations with the private sector at local level. People in private industry locally would support that. The district council has worked closely alongside the Wakefield and Kirklees chamber of commerce and, with private industry, has developed a number of initiatives in job creation, which are to be commended. It has developed successful enterprise centres based in the worst hit areas of Wakefield, which are clearly generating new jobs, although not to the extent required to replace the jobs that we have lost in the coal and textile industries, among others.
It is also fair to say that the district council has made strident efforts to attract new investment into the Wakefield district by marketing the area, trying to sell it to inward investment, with substantial success. The Minister will probably be aware of recent proposals by Coca-Cola-Schweppes to open a factory in the Normanton constituency, which, although not in Wakefield itself, will clearly have some bearing on my constituency.
In my opinion, the efforts that are being made by the local authority have been totally undermined by the Government's withdrawal of assistance. I want to give four brief examples of the ways in which I feel that the Government have directly damaged the prospects of the local economy in the Wakefield constituency and in the wider Wakefield district. Way back in 1982, the industrial development certificate system was abolished. Until that point, that system had actively encouraged the movement from the prosperous south-east to areas of unemployment in the north of people who would be prepared to create jobs. I felt at the time, and have certainly felt since, that such abolition was a backward step. In the same year—this is probably the most crucial point—the review of regional policy led to the withdrawal from Wakefield of the intermediate status that it had previously enjoyed. I shall refer to that later.
In 1985, the Department of the Environment announced that Wakefield would no longer be eligible for urban development grant. At local level, much progress had been made as a result of the use of those urban development grants. Indeed, I recently discussed the successes that we have had with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). When he visited my constituency before Christmas he was able to see the successes that we have had directly as a result of urban development grants being available to firms in Wakefield.
My request for this Adjournment debate stems from a recent spate of job losses that have hit my constituency. I should like to detail briefly the extent of those job losses. February 1988 was a black month for employment prospects in my constituency. On 4 February, as I am sure the Minister is fully aware, Hagenbach's bakery was scheduled for closure by Allied Bakeries Ltd. I believe that the bakery employs altogether over 300 people, but Hagenbach's and the people at the bakery have run a number of shops in the Yorkshire and Lancashire area. I

believe that the total package of losses announced by Allied Bakeries on 4 February was about 430 jobs—more than 300 jobs in the bakery in my constituency and the rest based in shops throughout the north of England.
What was especially worrying was that there had not been any prior warning to the employees about the drastic nature of the step taken by Allied Bakeries, although it is fair to say that 46 redundancies had occurred the previous October. However, there had been no subsequent attempts to cut production or reduce costs. As I understand it, distribution patterns had remained constant and there had not been any staff cuts.
I had subsequent contact with a gentleman by the name of Mr. J. W. Mutch, the personnel director of Allied Bakeries. I explained my concern and that I felt that it was discourteous, when there was such a sizeable closure, that the company had not taken the trouble to notify the local Member of Parliament which, from discussions with my predecessor, I had understood to be normal practice. Because of his concern at my involvement, Mr. Mutch came up to Wakefield overnight and I met him together with the local manager of the bakery to discuss in detail my concern over the issue. I also discussed with the trade union representatives at the bakery their concern about what had happened. Mr. Mutch informed me that the closure decision was
based on commercial decisions connected with the changing pattern of trade in the bread market, against a background of overcapacity in the plant bread industry.
In a letter to me, Mr. Mutch further stated:
We very much regret that the closure decision has had to be taken and it is important that we should assure you that the decision is no reflection on the skills and attitude of the workforce—many of whom have given loyal service over many years.
I do not have to tell the House that, in a situation such as this, the staff who had given such loyal service were devastated by the announcement. What particularly concerns me is that many of the staff are female and many are under 40: this poses particular problems when it comes to generating the jobs to make up for the major loss of this bakery.
As if that were not bad enough, in the same month Northern Dairies, which has a plant in Back lane, Wakefield, announced 58 job losses caused by a
reduction in milk production
at its Wakefield site. In his official announcement of this reduction, Mr. N. F. Benson, the area manager, stated:
This decision, which has not been taken lightly, is as a result of the cost of updating the Wakefield operation, the difficulties of the site itself and the need to maximise the effectiveness of production capacity across the company.
To be fair to this company, I understand that it intends to upgrade the remaining operation to what it calls "modern standards" and to spend some £750,000 on the site in the next 12 months. Nevertheless, this changeover has resulted in the loss of 58 jobs in an area where we can do without such a loss. It is likely that there will be other redundancies as a knock-on effect of the Northern Dairies announcement, presumably in the supply of milk to that dairy.
In addition to these two announcements of major job losses, two others were also made in February. An organisation called CAIB UK Ltd., previously based in the Horbury area and owned by an Australian conglomerate, Brambles Europe Ltd., has moved the operation of its railway wagon hire business from the Wakefield constituency to London; seven of its employees


have been offered work in London but the remaining 18 have been made redundant. So here are more job losses directly affecting my constituents.
The fourth major announcement last month was the fact that the Britvic Corona soft drinks depot in Flanshaw lane, Wakefield, is to be closed in the not too distant future. On that site at present there are 35 jobs altogether. I spoke to a Mr. Michael Salter, who is the new company secretary of Britvic Corona, based in Chelmsford. He told me that this was
part of a rationalisation programme.
He added that there was hope for relocation of some of the jobs in Leeds. But for me, attempting to keep work in my constituency, it is a net loss of 35 jobs for the people of Wakefield.
In a matter of four weeks, therefore, over 400 jobs have been lost to Wakefield people, So I am here to tell the Government that we need some assistance and some response about the situation in Wakefield.
What do Wakefield people want from the Government? We need a recognition that unemployment is a human issue, not an abstract concept. It worries me sometimes, listening to debates in the House, that people forget that it is human beings we are talking about. It certainly hit me when 1 met the people at Hagenbach's, who told me that when the announcement was made people there who were not prone to show emotion wept openly, because it was the end of the world for them: their future was a complete blank, a mystery, to them from that day.
We require recognition, particularly when it comes to closures in the coal industry, that redundancy payments, however generous, are no substitute for real jobs which are needed by school leavers, by young people and by unemployed people in my area.
We need a recognition of the problems facing the local economy in Wakefield. It concerns me that much of the Government policy at present directed towards local economies is based on figures in the 1984 census of employment. As regards Wakefield, those figures pre-date the huge decline in mining jobs, in particular, which have taken place in the past two or three years. At that stage, of course, there was what I would call a stockpile of miners, awaiting the development of the new Selby coalfield. Things have changed significantly since 1984, and the Minister should he clear about that.
It is important to stress the concern that the Government's industrial policy is aimed largely at inner areas of large cities. Wakefield has small towns and communities, which are not suited to the type of redevelopments undertaken by the Government in certain of the large inner-city areas.
Further, the Wakefield people want recognition that Wakefield's problems are in many ways a consequence of the operation of market forces. We do not believe that free market operations will resolve the serious problems that we are facing. Wakefield people want their area to be granted appropriate economic development status, so that public funds are made available to invest in the infrastructure needed for job creation — roads and factory premises—and to attract direct investment in jobs.
Other Yorkshire Members and I received a letter from the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association about the urgent need for advance factory units, especially in non-assisted areas such as mine. The letter refers to the reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for

Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), when he said that in his opinion the issue will be dealt with by market mechanisms. The YHDA said:
The trouble is, if you compare the 1982 to 1987 figures quoted above with the 1977 to 1982, and with the 1972 to 1977 figures, the general picture remains the same. Taking the entire 1972 to 1987 period, industrial property values rose by 12.5 per cent. in the South … If you take inflation into account, at 11 per cent., you will see that there is a positive growth rate in the South and a negative one in the North. We have been waiting 15 years for market mechanisms to sort out the problems we presently face. It is our belief here at the YHDA that those market mechanisms need a gentle nudge.
I am sure that the Minister will take the points I have made seriously.
I am not here with a begging bowl; I am here with pride in my local community, in which I have lived all my life, and a strong conviction that, with the restoration of the minimal assistance from Government that was taken away, Wakefield can begin to tackle successfully the problems I have outlined and start to rebuild its economy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on having secured this Adjournment debate. I fully understand his concern for the needs of his constituents and his commitment to them.
I accept that job losses have occurred in Wakefield and that the unemployment rate is higher than any of us would wish it to be. I recognise that we are talking about human beings. Like many areas throughout the United Kingdom, Wakefield has suffered from a decline in traditional industries, particularly coal mining. I shall be spending much of this speech talking about matters of particular relevance to Wakefield, but I should first like to put Wakefield's situation in a broader context.
Unemployment is not just a matter for local or even national concern. It is an international problem: over 16 million people are currently unemployed in the 12 countries of the European Community. We are constantly searching for ways to help industry and commerce create new jobs, and to help the unemployed help themselves, and we are having some success.
Unemployment in the United Kingdom has now fallen for 18 months in succession: by almost 647,000 since July 1986. This is the largest sustained fall on record. Over the last six months, unemployment has fallen by a record average of 52,000 per month. Over the past year, United Kingdom unemployment has fallen faster than in all other major industrial countries, and our rate is now lower than in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Ireland. Of particular note is the fact that unemployment has fallen significantly among under 18-year-olds and among those who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.
Unemployment has been falling for the last 18 months, but employment has been rising for the last 18 quarters. In that time, the civilian labour force in the United Kingdom has grown by over 1·5 million. This is the longest period of continuous employment growth for nearly 30 years. I am particularly pleased about that, although much of this growth has been in the service industries and in the ranks of the self-employed. Manufacturing employment has also been rising over the last three months.
Wakefield and the whole Yorkshire and Humberside region are sharing in these favourable trends.
Unemployment in the region fell by 46,600 in the 12 months to January 1988. In the same period, unemployment in the Wakefield and Dewsbury travel-to-work area fell by over 2,600, and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by 828, which represents over 15 per cent. of the total unemployed in the constituency at January 1987. Unfilled vacancies at jobcentres at January 1988 totalled 878, up 20 per cent. on 1987.
In this same period, in the 12 months to January 1988, youth unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region fell by over 25 per cent. and the number of those unemployed for more than 12 months fell by over 16 per cent. In the period from June 1983 to June 1987, the civilian labour force in the region grew by 97,000. This represents a 5 per cent. increase, which exceeds the growth in the north as a whole.
The specific job losses in Wakefield to which the hon. Gentleman referred are primarily job losses due to colliery closures and cuts, the closure of a bakery and staffing reductions in a local dairy. I am sure that, as in almost all situations where workers stand to lose their jobs, there are arguments, some more valid than others, that can be mounted against these particular cuts. But ultimately they are clearly all decisions for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned. I have to say bluntly that none of them is a matter in which it would be correct for the Government to intervene, and it would be unfair to the employees concerned to pretend otherwise.
It is a fact of commercial and industrial life that companies both large and small sometimes find themselves in a position where closure or a reduction in the workforce is unavoidable. Legislation exists, subject to certain conditions and thresholds, for the notification of redundancies, for consultation with recognised trade unions and for redundancy payments. In many cases employers—the National Coal Board is one—go beyond the strict legal requirements in terms of consultation and redundancy pay, and of course all the facilities of the Department of Employment and of the Manpower Services Commission, to which I shall refer extensively, are available to those who lose their jobs, and that is all to the good.
But it is futile to think that the Government or anyone else can wave some magic wand, halt the process of change or turn the clock back to the employment pattern of some past time so as to prevent these closures and job losses from occurring. Change is inevitable. What matters is how we respond to change.
There is evidence that not all the change in Wakefield is in the direction perceived by the hon. Gentleman. I have referred to the favourable trends in unemployment and employment which can be seen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Jobs are being created to replace in part those being lost. We had the recent planning decision, taken against a background of some local opposition, to allow a major soft drinks warehouse on the outskirts of Wakefield which it is hoped will create several hundred jobs. I also note that Wakefield district council is encouraging job creation by giving financial assistance provided by the European social fund to local firms taking on young people.
I have taken an interest in the problems of Wakefield, and went there last April. One of my engagements was to visit a job club, of which there are three in Wakefield. They

have an excellent record and two thirds of the unemployed who have passed through these job clubs have found employment. I also visited M. P. Stonehouse Ltd, at Albion Mills, Wakefield, a textile company which, certainly at that stage, was trading well.
I also understand that the Wakefield enterprise zone, which exists on three sites in the locality, has shown an excellent record of attracting employment. In December 1986, the latest date for which I have seen figures, there were 65 firms located in the zone, compared with 18 on the dates of designation in 1981 and 1983, and that there were 2,700 jobs compared with 1,200 on designation and 1,700 in December 1985.

Mr. Hinchliffe: While the Minister says that the enterprise zone has attracted jobs, my impression is that the zone, which is not in my constituency, has attracted those jobs from elsewhere rather than having created new jobs.

Mr. Lee: My experience of enterprise zones—I have the experience, I am glad to say, of having two in my constituency — is that, while some jobs move from outside into an enterprise zone, normally some new jobs are created. Also, an enterprise zone creates new factories, which obviously help modern manufacturing processes.
The Government believe that they are creating an economic climate in which industry is becoming more competitive in world markets, and which allows enterprise and job creation to flourish. But it should not for one moment be thought that we are leaving it at that. We are also helping firms, especially small firms, to equip themselves for growth, and helping the unemployed to equip themselves for a return to work. My Department and others have a wide and costly range of measures to help industry and the unemployed.
The Department of Trade and Industry recently launched its enterprise initiative, which will provide assistance mainly to small and medium-sized firms. My Department, through its small firms centres, supports the budding entrepreneur as well as established small firms with low-cost information and advice, offered through more than 300 counsellors in 170 locations, including Leeds. In 1987, the small firms service dealt with 282,000 inquiries nationwide and provided more than 38,000 counselling sessions.
The local enterprise agency movement is also proving to be a potent force for encouraging enterprise and employment at a local level. Nationally, more than 3,000 private sector companies now support local enterprise agencies. Although the Government believe that this movement must be led by the private sector, we have introduced a grant scheme to strengthen agencies and make them better able to attract further private sector funds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the Kirklees and Wakefield venture trust, which was launched in 1981 and which has received assistance under the grant scheme.
My Department is particularly concerned about unemployed people who possess initiative, ideas and some capital, but who hesitate to take the risk of losing unemployment benefit. To help them we have introduced the enterprise allowance scheme, which encourages enterprise among the unemployed by paying them £40 a week for the first year of self-employment. About 274,000


people nationally have so far started a business using this scheme, and more than 1,600 individuals are currently benefiting from the scheme in the Wakefield area.
I have tried to demonstrate that, despite certain job losses, there are encouraging signs in Wakefield's employment position. Unemployment is falling; and employment in the region as a whole is rising.
Assisted area status is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not for me and my Department. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an article in the Yorkshire Post on 26 February, headed
City on the verge of a job bonanza".
It refers to the comments of Councillor John Pearman, who
hinted at exciting developments on the jobs front in the immediate future",
and later to the comments of Councillor Peter Box, chairman of Wakefield's employment and economic development committee. He said:
There's a certain buoyancy at the moment as far as interest from private sector companies is concerned. We are dealing with a substantial number of inquiries from firms large and small.

He went on to say that
it seemed that Wakefield's geographical advantage being close to the M1 and M62, was central to the attraction, coupled to a reputation of having a good workforce and excellent industrial estates.
One hopes that some of those general optimistic comments will, in the fulness of time, come through in the form of specific jobs.
I have tried to show that the Government are helping Wakefield and areas like it to overcome their economic problems. We are putting in place measures, such as YTS and our new adult training strategy, which are not merely short-term expedients, but are long-term programmes designed to meet the nation's long-term future needs.
Above all, we see our role as establishing economic conditions conducive to enterprise and job creation. 'We are succeeding in that. We are now well into our seventh successive year of steady growth, and the fifth year in which growth has been combined with low inflation—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to One o'clock.